I know we already have a discussion topic for it, but I'm really interested to see some numbers for how Dakka received the film. Rotten Tomatoes indicates that only about 54% of those who voted on the site liked it, but IMDB has a significantly higher score.
I liked it for the most part. There are definitely some issues IMO, but nothing so shattering that it took me completely out of immersion while watching the movie and made me want to walk out.
The Star Wars franchise has not been so transparently cynical since the prequels trilogy. One (or technically two) rewarding scenes cannot overcome dead-weight, dead-end plotlines, relentless tone deaf humor, and bizarre characterizations of beloved characters.
bbb wrote: I know we already have a discussion topic for it, but I'm really interested to see some numbers for how Dakka received the film. Rotten Tomatoes indicates that only about 54% of those who voted on the site liked it, but IMDB has a significantly higher score.
I'm not sure how to vote. I really had fun watching it but I don't think it was a good movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I kind of wonder if people who enjoyed the Ewok Adventure movies liked TLJ. They seem to require the same mindset.
To quote Screen Junkies: "Okay, movie. You're the movie."
I liked it for the visuals mostly. They were stunning and I have a soft spot for the continued aesthetic of the original trilogy. The movie is good in that sense. I rate it around a 2.5 / 5 overall.
The story tho was abit rubbish and all over the shop and often left me second guessing whats going on.
A few moments like when Rey went below the island to visit Harry Potter's Mirror of Erised. Like seriously, why did Rey suddenly start going up to a frosted over mirror rock thing and start asking to see her parents.
Does the mirror rock thing even have that power? We'd only been told whatever was under the island was somehow linked to the darkside.
There's also Princess Leia, spacefairy.
Another being how the supposedly stronge darkside user we've seen didnt have any backstory of where he came from at all bar he exists to justify the plot.
That was ok for the emperor when star wars didnt have an overly established setting but feels lacking when it pops up in the series 8th installment.
And then he cant even sense the force interferring with a lightsaber thats right next to him. Thats worse than when Darth Maul got chopped in half by Obi-Wan.
Atleast Maul was distracted by Obi-Wan flying up out of the pit when he got killed. This new muppet couldn't even keep track of the lightsaber that Rey had already tried pinching once.
Snoke was only cut in half. He could come back with robotic arms and legs. Of course, everyone will be worried about droids by then. Droids stronger than any Darkside user ever. Then the next villain will be an artificial being made from the DNA of the galaxy's strongest force users. You better believe he will be deadlier than those droids. The one after that will be some kind of demon baby...
I at first thought Snoke on the throne there was a droid, since they pretty callously showed his body for multiple scenes after that. Including having it fall over part way through.
I voted yes, but I have to define what "yes" meant.
IMHO there are only 3 star wars, the second and the third trilogy are all bad compared to the original masterpiece. Honestly EP VII and VIII were mediocre or average, but the typical american blockbuster is mediocre or average.
I enjoyed The Last Jedi (I rated it with 6/10 on IMDB) as a decent action sci-movie made by Disney, I've never had any expectations about it.
I really enjoyed the film. It was kind of dumb but I expect most Disney movies to be enjoyably dumb. Didn't expect too much out of it and had a good time.
The plot was a mess. The director clearly loved nBSG more than he did SW. The casino planet detour was complete waste of film. Johnson's trashing of JJ's set up renders TFA worthless (or more worthless, really). Chewie did nothing other than be the crux of cut-away gags. R2 did nothing. 3P0 did nothing. Haldo's entire plotline makes no sense. Leia turned into a space wizard for some reason.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The plot was a mess. The director clearly loved nBSG more than he did SW. The casino planet detour was complete waste of film. Johnson's trashing of JJ's set up renders TFA worthless (or more worthless, really). Chewie did nothing other than be the crux of cut-away gags. R2 did nothing. 3P0 did nothing. Haldo's entire plotline makes no sense. Leia turned into a space wizard for some reason.
And they killed my fav character.
Did not enjoy it.
Hey, there's nothing more exciting that a slow speed chase involving massive spacecraft. Also makes me want to go back to A New Hope and see how that Star Destroyer caught up to the Rebel Blockade Runner...
One of the annoying things was the magic jump in technology that has galaxy shaking effects. Being able to track hyperspace jumps felt like being able to transport anywhere in the galaxy even at warp speed in Star Trek (2009) and Khan's magic blood in Into Darkenss.
It was a fun and exciting cinema experience. Very "Marvel". Lots of beautiful special effects, impressive shots, choreographed action, etc. For a couple hours of dramatic entertainment, it was great.
As a cohesive story and structured narrative, as the continuation of a saga and as an intelligible, self consistent plot, it's complete and total garbage, screenwriting diarrhea without exaggeration.
What you're looking for will probably determine your answer between the two.
Ultimately I walked out of there thinking "I don't ever need to see another Star Wars now". I will of course, but probably not in theatres, certainly not opening night, and I dont care enough to avoid spoilers for anything that happens going forward, my emotional investment in the series is now gone.
Vaktathi wrote: my emotional investment in the series is now gone
This is my feeling. In the theater, I was stunned. The next couple of days, I felt angry. Now I am just empty about it. I realized it was meant to be disposable. The movie was exactly like a bucket of popcorn - something you mindlessly eat and then never think about again.
Vaktathi wrote: my emotional investment in the series is now gone
This is my feeling. In the theater, I was stunned. The next couple of days, I felt angry. Now I am just empty about it. I realized it was meant to be disposable. The movie was exactly like a bucket of popcorn - something you mindlessly eat and then never think about again.
Pretty much me as well. Although I do enjoy the youtube videos that trash talk it. Instead of buying another ticket and seeing TLJ again, I can help give some youtubers some money. Anyone Angry Joe's Angry Review?
Vaktathi wrote: It was a fun and exciting cinema experience. Very "Marvel". Lots of beautiful special effects, impressive shots, choreographed action, etc. For a couple hours of dramatic entertainment, it was great.
As a cohesive story and structured narrative, as the continuation of a saga and as an intelligible, self consistent plot, it's complete and total garbage, screenwriting diarrhea without exaggeration.
What you're looking for will probably determine your answer between the two.
Ultimately I walked out of there thinking "I don't ever need to see another Star Wars now". I will of course, but probably not in theatres, certainly not opening night, and I dont care enough to avoid spoilers for anything that happens going forward, my emotional investment in the series is now gone.
Vaktathi wrote: my emotional investment in the series is now gone
This is my feeling. In the theater, I was stunned. The next couple of days, I felt angry. Now I am just empty about it. I realized it was meant to be disposable. The movie was exactly like a bucket of popcorn - something you mindlessly eat and then never think about again.
Wow wow back up, I have fond memories of my last bowl of popcorn!
Vaktathi wrote: my emotional investment in the series is now gone
This is my feeling. In the theater, I was stunned. The next couple of days, I felt angry. Now I am just empty about it. I realized it was meant to be disposable. The movie was exactly like a bucket of popcorn - something you mindlessly eat and then never think about again.
The thing that gets me is that for about 30 years the end of RotJ was the happy ending and the prequels did nothing to mitigate that even with how bad they were. Now with the new trilogy we see that at the end of RotJ:
The Jedi did not return
The Rebel Alliance did not vanquish the Empire, but merely paused it so it could be reshaped into Space-Nazis
Han and Leia did not live happily ever after
Darth Vader's redemption was not remembered, only this tyranny, which would eventually be revisited by his grandson
Luke was a terrible teacher and uncle, and Leia and Han were terrible parents
Luke and Han both ran from their troubles instead of trying to correct them
The Skywalkers were not the solution to the balance of the Force.
Vaktathi wrote: my emotional investment in the series is now gone
This is my feeling. In the theater, I was stunned. The next couple of days, I felt angry. Now I am just empty about it. I realized it was meant to be disposable. The movie was exactly like a bucket of popcorn - something you mindlessly eat and then never think about again.
I had that feeling during the prequels. My friends had to drag me to RotS, and I cringed though most of the movie. Then came TFA and did it to me all over again. Star Wars is dead. Letting go is liberating.
I actually liked TFA. I thought it was bad that TFA did not sufficiently characterize Rey but I figured they would certainly get around to it in TLJ. Nope. Fool me once, etc. (I think it's pretty well known around here thanks to my ranting that I don't like R1.)
bbb, don't forget Luke wasted his whole life doing nothing
It's always been my opinion that the original trilogy geing any good was a happy accident. There were enough talented people involved facing enough challenges and limitations that forced them into a mode of creative thought, that the end result was teeming with promise and life. The prequel trilogy shows what happens when all of those challenges and limitations go away, and you give one guy, who's frankly kind of a hack, the reigns to do with as he will. In Lucas' case, his ego project turned out to be about trade disputes and marketing hard to children.
TLJ is what happens when you take even that lone hack away from his brainchild, and hand control over to a committee of corporate executives. Everything that gave it a sense of life and internal consistency is gone - no more Alan Dean Fosters to clean up the story, no more George Lucas with his goofy ideas about interstellar dynasties and economics (and gungans), just a bunch of people in a sterile corporate office whose only qualifications to work on a sprawling sci-fi space opera is that they've made some studio a lot of money in the past.
TLJ felt a bit cartoony/marvel esque and somehow despite being one of the longest SW movies failed to develop most of its characters in any meaningful way. And introduced more cringey ones along the way. The world building left a bit to be desired too.
Not only that, they took basically everything from ANH all the way up to TFA and said, "Meh, who cares about resolving this stuff. We don't need any of this old baggage because we own the rights!"
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately I walked out of there thinking "I don't ever need to see another Star Wars now".
Another saga film, at least. I mean think about it:
Han is gone. Luke is gone. Leia is gone (not anyone's fault, but reality is reality - Carrie Fisher isn't going to be in another SW film). Chewie was reduced to cutaway gags to sell Porg toys. R2 was in one scene. 3P0 was ignored. We got a noble last-ditch sacrifice of a character that means something to the fandom, Admiral Akbar... oh no wait, Holdo got the sacrifice. Akbar got killed off screen.
What meaning is left in any of this?
I like Rey (or did, more on that below), I think Adam Driver is fantastic as Kylo, and I think Oscar Issac is amazing in everything he does... but this isn't the Star Wars saga any more. If these were standalone films, then I'd be cool with it (like Rogue One, which I thought was fantastic). But this is meant to be the continuation of the actual mainline SW story. Last Jedi... ended it.
Manchu wrote: This is my feeling. In the theater, I was stunned. The next couple of days, I felt angry. Now I am just empty about it. I realized it was meant to be disposable. The movie was exactly like a bucket of popcorn - something you mindlessly eat and then never think about again.
That's pretty much my feelings. I'm going to see it again with my parents next week, and I actually kinda don't want to. I want to see the cool battles again (the first battle, the hyperspace ramming speed bit which is simply the most amazing moment in all 9 (to date) SW films), but the idea of having to sit through all the Luke bs again. Uhh...
Manchu wrote: I actually liked TFA. I thought it was bad that TFA did not sufficiently characterize Rey but I figured they would certainly get around to it in TLJ.
I didn't like TFA because it's a near beat-by-beat remake of ANH but one of the things I did like was Rey, and I did not agree with the cries of how she was a 'Mary Sue'.
I always figured that there would be a reason she is so innately strong with the force, and that that would be the mystery that we eventually resolve in the third new film.
But no. She's a nobody. She comes from nothing. She has no significance. She is a Mary Sue.
What a fething waste...
Manchu wrote: bbb, don't forget Luke wasted his whole life doing nothing
And then had the worst death in the whole saga except for Padme losing the will to live in ROTS.
They killed my fav character, and it didn't feel earned. I can't forgive the film for that.
My fav character in the MCU is Captain America. I'm certain that he's dead in either one of the next two Avenger's films. I hope he goes out with a bang, and not by collapsing on a rock and then disappearing.
I dont think this was meant to be a continuation of the old starwars saga. I think 7 8 9 is meant to be a bridge and foundation for a time jump forward. I think the end of 9 will see a new order put in place that isnt about the light or dark but the balance. And 500-1000 years later we will see a story based around the new order in episode 10.
This saga isnt just about the skywalkers anymore. Good.
If they wanted to time jump, there was no reason to piss on the triumph of the Rebellion from ROTJ. They could move forward a thousand years and make Knights of the New Republic without upsetting anyone. Luke and company had their happy ever after, but Disney tore it all up for the sake of two half-hearted films.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If they wanted to time jump, there was no reason to piss on the triumph of the Rebellion from ROTJ. They could move forward a thousand years and make Knights of the New Republic without upsetting anyone. Luke and company had their happy ever after, but Disney tore it all up for the sake of two half-hearted films.
Disagree. I think lukes ending was great. He got to be a legend one last time on his way out. Kids sitting around telling the story of how luke skywalker faced off against the whole first order and faced kylo ren alone. A perfect ending for luke. Much better then him just retiring post jedi and being happy tiill he died. Thats dull as dirt. And as unstarwarsy as you can get. Everyones family/friends life in sw is 24/7 drama.
Voted liked, but a moderate like. It's a flawed film, but more like than dislike. We knew Disney would be milking that cash cow the moment they bought the IP, and this is probably the best we can expect. The new movies shouldn't exist, but sadly that isn't an option. IMO it's best to just forget that it's a Star Wars movie, the OT is done and exists in a separate universe. The new era is an alternate-universe reboot of the concept, don't put too much weight into how they resolved the story of the OT (which was finished and needed no resolution).
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If they wanted to time jump, there was no reason to piss on the triumph of the Rebellion from ROTJ. They could move forward a thousand years and make Knights of the New Republic without upsetting anyone. Luke and company had their happy ever after, but Disney tore it all up for the sake of two half-hearted films.
Disagree. I think lukes ending was great. He got to be a legend one last time on his way out. Kids sitting around telling the story of how luke skywalker faced off against the whole first order and faced kylo ren alone. A perfect ending for luke. Much better then him just retiring post jedi and being happy tiill he died. Thats dull as dirt. And as unstarwarsy as you can get. Everyones family/friends life in sw is 24/7 drama.
So, 90% of Luke's remaining life was spent in cabin feverish isolation dwelling on how he turned all his victories into ash, nearly gave in to fear and murdered his nephew thus creating a monster as evil as Darth Vader, but it's all okay because he showed up in time to save some but not all of his closest friends from the very threat he created?
Dull as dirt? That's why you don't follow their lives past happily ever after. Why does his life need to be all drama now and in what sense is that a Star Wars thing instead of a washed up franchise thing? And you can't think of a way to fit in any exciting stories in the life of a Gandalfish Jedi master legend who set out to rebuild a religion?
This is a failure of modern writing. You don't need to torture your characters to create drama. Buffy season 6 is not a role model.
Luke, the whinest character in sw, spwnt the last half of his life in isolation moping about his failures because all of his teachers who kicked him in the ass when he got like this were dead and not around to kick him in the ass.
Yup. Sounds like luke. And then, when rey and yoda kick him in his ass, he does his luke thing.
Still, I would have been happier never revisiting the Iconic characters again after ROTJ.
If im right and this whole thing is about seeing the end of the jedi and the sith and the rise of a new balance order then this story is important. If they JUST time jumped to 1000 years later and suddenly there was a new order combining the 2 how pissed would everyone be? "Why the feth would the sith ever work with the jedi? And why would the jedi ever accept dark side users? This is all bs!"
And if they jumped 500 years forward to tell this story without luke and co then you would be going "who the hell trained all these people?"
This is a critical period when the jedi and sith are both down and out. These are the last of them. The time is ripe for something new to come out of their ashes NOW, not 10+ generations later.
Vaktathi wrote:It was a fun and exciting cinema experience. Very "Marvel". Lots of beautiful special effects, impressive shots, choreographed action, etc. For a couple hours of dramatic entertainment, it was great.
As a cohesive story and structured narrative, as the continuation of a saga and as an intelligible, self consistent plot, it's complete and total garbage, screenwriting diarrhea without exaggeration.
What you're looking for will probably determine your answer between the two.
Ultimately I walked out of there thinking "I don't ever need to see another Star Wars now". I will of course, but probably not in theatres, certainly not opening night, and I dont care enough to avoid spoilers for anything that happens going forward, my emotional investment in the series is now gone.
I agree, but that happened to me with The Force Awa...
Frazzled wrote:
Vaktathi wrote: It was a fun and exciting cinema experience. Very "Marvel". Lots of beautiful special effects, impressive shots, choreographed action, etc. For a couple hours of dramatic entertainment, it was great.
As a cohesive story and structured narrative, as the continuation of a saga and as an intelligible, self consistent plot, it's complete and total garbage, screenwriting diarrhea without exaggeration.
What you're looking for will probably determine your answer between the two.
Ultimately I walked out of there thinking "I don't ever need to see another Star Wars now". I will of course, but probably not in theatres, certainly not opening night, and I dont care enough to avoid spoilers for anything that happens going forward, my emotional investment in the series is now gone.
Vaktathi wrote: my emotional investment in the series is now gone
This is my feeling. In the theater, I was stunned. The next couple of days, I felt angry. Now I am just empty about it. I realized it was meant to be disposable. The movie was exactly like a bucket of popcorn - something you mindlessly eat and then never think about again.
Wow wow back up, I have fond memories of my last bowl of popcorn!
Damn, great minds think alike.
What this poll needs is an option for "Won't watch it in the theater" as TFA has so thoroughly killed my interest in the franchise that I'd barely be motivated to Redbox TLJ
Still, I would have been happier never revisiting the Iconic characters again after ROTJ.
If im right and this whole thing is about seeing the end of the jedi and the sith and the rise of a new balance order then this story is important. If they JUST time jumped to 1000 years later and suddenly there was a new order combining the 2 how pissed would everyone be? "Why the feth would the sith ever work with the jedi? And why would the jedi ever accept dark side users? This is all bs!"
And if they jumped 500 years forward to tell this story without luke and co then you would be going "who the hell trained all these people?"
This is a critical period when the jedi and sith are both down and out. These are the last of them. The time is ripe for something new to come out of their ashes NOW, not 10+ generations later.
They're likely not going Grey Jedi or anything else like a new order. Watching enough interviews and it's pretty evident each director was given ALOT of lee-way to just do whatever, which means there isn't some iron narrative binding them.
Also, Rey isn't making anything new. She literally took the Jedi texts with her when she left Luke. You can see them in the end scenes. Yoda even tells Luke "they do not possess anything she does not already have" (paraphrase) in what appears to be a wink to that fact.
Rey's a Jedi and Kylo's a Sith (or Dark Jedi if you want to get technical). That's where we are.
As for me, I voted conflicted. Some of this movie was really great, but Rose was completely unnecessary AND trivialized Finn in his own story to such an extent that you can literally cut him out of the film and it's fine. Plus it ruined the Finn/Poe bromance by denying it screentime.
Luke's reveal was all wrong; I agree with Mark Hamill that Luke, the most hopeful man in the Galaxy who alone believed (and did) turn Darth Vader to the Light would never think his nephew was unredeemable and had to die. He also wouldn't mope about it for 30 years (though he is a whiner so he'd definitely mope some I think). His death made no sense from a meta perspective either. If you're going to kill him, put him on the planet and give him a Vader hallway scene ala Rogue One. If you aren't THEN do the cool mass Force projection trick.
The Darkside pit had a lot of build up to do jack all too. Wasted pit device (har har I made a pun).
Conversely, I liked Holdo, though she should've lived and Akbar gotten the sacrifice. She can step into a combo Leia/Mothma role for future films that way.
Wasting Akbar was one of the greatest sins of this movie. He should have done the ram and preceeded it with some com chatter about surrendering to the First Order.
General Hux: Admiral Akbar, this is the end of your puny Resistance.
Admiral Akbar: Actually, General Hux, (dramatic pause) it's a trap.
bbb wrote: Wasting Akbar was one of the greatest sins of this movie. He should have done the ram and preceeded it with some com chatter about surrendering to the First Order.
General Hux: Admiral Akbar, this is the end of your puny Resistance.
Admiral Akbar: Actually, General Hux, (dramatic pause) it's a trap.
Still, I would have been happier never revisiting the Iconic characters again after ROTJ.
If im right and this whole thing is about seeing the end of the jedi and the sith and the rise of a new balance order then this story is important. If they JUST time jumped to 1000 years later and suddenly there was a new order combining the 2 how pissed would everyone be? "Why the feth would the sith ever work with the jedi? And why would the jedi ever accept dark side users? This is all bs!"
And if they jumped 500 years forward to tell this story without luke and co then you would be going "who the hell trained all these people?"
This is a critical period when the jedi and sith are both down and out. These are the last of them. The time is ripe for something new to come out of their ashes NOW, not 10+ generations later.
You say all that like you think there's a plan. There isn't a plan. This whole last movie is one guy's ego telling some other guy's ego to get bent.
I assure you fans could take those changes in stride far more easily than they are taking Old Yeller's Master Luke or the Nothing Matters Trio.
bbb wrote: Wasting Akbar was one of the greatest sins of this movie. He should have done the ram and preceeded it with some com chatter about surrendering to the First Order.
General Hux: Admiral Akbar, this is the end of your puny Resistance.
Admiral Akbar: Actually, General Hux, (dramatic pause) it's a trap.
[Akbar then initiates the hyperspace jump]
Ok that would be awesome.
Indeed. I would have loved that. Also have Lando be the master code breaker that Finn and Rose were supposed to find and you pretty much check some important boxes
However, I feel like a large portions of the fan community would find some to complain about that too
Lands is a swindler, a smoothie and an administrator. His talent lies in interpersonal skills. Having him be a master computer hacker would be asinine. Either you respect the source material or you create fansploosh.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If they wanted to time jump, there was no reason to piss on the triumph of the Rebellion from ROTJ. They could move forward a thousand years and make Knights of the New Republic without upsetting anyone. Luke and company had their happy ever after, but Disney tore it all up for the sake of two half-hearted films.
Disagree. I think lukes ending was great. He got to be a legend one last time on his way out. Kids sitting around telling the story of how luke skywalker faced off against the whole first order and faced kylo ren alone. A perfect ending for luke. Much better then him just retiring post jedi and being happy tiill he died. Thats dull as dirt. And as unstarwarsy as you can get. Everyones family/friends life in sw is 24/7 drama.
So, 90% of Luke's remaining life was spent in cabin feverish isolation dwelling on how he turned all his victories into ash, nearly gave in to fear and murdered his nephew thus creating a monster as evil as Darth Vader, but it's all okay because he showed up in time to save some but not all of his closest friends from the very threat he created?
Dull as dirt? That's why you don't follow their lives past happily ever after. Why does his life need to be all drama now and in what sense is that a Star Wars thing instead of a washed up franchise thing? And you can't think of a way to fit in any exciting stories in the life of a Gandalfish Jedi master legend who set out to rebuild a religion?
This is a failure of modern writing. You don't need to torture your characters to create drama. Buffy season 6 is not a role model.
Yeah, damn modern writers for not leaving happy ending alone and tearing down beloved cultural icons! Never has the story of a boy who went from nothing to a great leader with the help of a wise old man and an amazing sword been so destroyed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Morte_d%27Arthur
Seriously, I do not get the outrage. SW was always a pretty mediocre series that largely just rehashed old fairy tale tropes and was propelled by some really good unknown (at the time) actors and great timing (like many iconic 80s movies). Lucas added a ton on inanity later, and the series has long been just a cash grab with some rabid fans. Now it is a corporate brand that has to push blockbusters, toys, etc. to the masses. If you get an entertaining spectacle with messages that aren't horrible, that's probably about the best you can expect.
Still, I would have been happier never revisiting the Iconic characters again after ROTJ.
If im right and this whole thing is about seeing the end of the jedi and the sith and the rise of a new balance order then this story is important. If they JUST time jumped to 1000 years later and suddenly there was a new order combining the 2 how pissed would everyone be? "Why the feth would the sith ever work with the jedi? And why would the jedi ever accept dark side users? This is all bs!"
And if they jumped 500 years forward to tell this story without luke and co then you would be going "who the hell trained all these people?"
This is a critical period when the jedi and sith are both down and out. These are the last of them. The time is ripe for something new to come out of their ashes NOW, not 10+ generations later.
They're likely not going Grey Jedi or anything else like a new order. Watching enough interviews and it's pretty evident each director was given ALOT of lee-way to just do whatever, which means there isn't some iron narrative binding them.
Also, Rey isn't making anything new. She literally took the Jedi texts with her when she left Luke. You can see them in the end scenes. Yoda even tells Luke "they do not possess anything she does not already have" (paraphrase) in what appears to be a wink to that fact.
Rey's a Jedi and Kylo's a Sith (or Dark Jedi if you want to get technical). That's where we are.
As for me, I voted conflicted. Some of this movie was really great, but Rose was completely unnecessary AND trivialized Finn in his own story to such an extent that you can literally cut him out of the film and it's fine. Plus it ruined the Finn/Poe bromance by denying it screentime.
Luke's reveal was all wrong; I agree with Mark Hamill that Luke, the most hopeful man in the Galaxy who alone believed (and did) turn Darth Vader to the Light would never think his nephew was unredeemable and had to die. He also wouldn't mope about it for 30 years (though he is a whiner so he'd definitely mope some I think). His death made no sense from a meta perspective either. If you're going to kill him, put him on the planet and give him a Vader hallway scene ala Rogue One. If you aren't THEN do the cool mass Force projection trick.
The Darkside pit had a lot of build up to do jack all too. Wasted pit device (har har I made a pun).
Conversely, I liked Holdo, though she should've lived and Akbar gotten the sacrifice. She can step into a combo Leia/Mothma role for future films that way.
Rian Johnson is heading up the next trillogy. Disney has made him the Kevin Fiege of episodes 10-12.So look at episode 8. Time for the Jedi to end. No dark jedi apprentice. The Jedi texts so the knowledge isn't lost but can be used as a foundation for something new. Yoda says its time for it to end. Luke says its time for it to end. Snoak and Kylo say time to end.
Ridley and Driver have both said they are not in the next trilogy and 9 is likely their last SW movie.
As for Rose and Finn, their plot was about giving Finn a reason to believe in the resistance. Finn wasn't actually FOR the resistance yet. He was only about getting away from the First Order. Rose showed him the people who got hurt by the first Order and by the end of it Finn gained a conviction to not just leave the first order but to actually fight against it. Before that casino bit Finn was only doing what he could to help his 2 friends (Rey and Poe) and otherwise to just get away. After that he was willing to die to help the resistance.
He hasn't moped for 30 years. He maybe Mopeds for the last 10-15? How old Is driver in these movies? How old was he when he turned?
The Darkside pit showed the lure of the Darkside on Rey. She literally explains it's pull, it's promise, and how those promises are empty. That it feeds on your desires. I think the pit did a better job of showing how tempting the darkside can be to someone just starting out with the force then 1-3 ever did.
It was a movie "good enough" to do a bit more clean-up of breaking ties with the old and bring in the new.
- Throw away big-bad Snoke... I think they had no idea what to do with him.
- Leia acting like a Sith-Lord in hiding... it was a WTF moment.
- Kylo acting like some spoiled brat Emo, I had more respect for Joffrey in Game of Thrones.
- Luke acting like the literal weird uncle that smoked too much force weed. I kept looking for his Wookie companion "Scooby".
- I always wanted to see the Emperor's Royal Guard in action, too bad they seemed more fierce than what they were guarding.
- Poe seemed a bit more of a "meat-head" than what we saw in him before.
- Ackbar I agree really needed to be the one to use his ship in a "trap"... that would have been utterly epic.
Looked awesome and DJ was a really neat character that was worth seeing the movie just for him.
Still, I would have been happier never revisiting the Iconic characters again after ROTJ.
If im right and this whole thing is about seeing the end of the jedi and the sith and the rise of a new balance order then this story is important. If they JUST time jumped to 1000 years later and suddenly there was a new order combining the 2 how pissed would everyone be? "Why the feth would the sith ever work with the jedi? And why would the jedi ever accept dark side users? This is all bs!"
And if they jumped 500 years forward to tell this story without luke and co then you would be going "who the hell trained all these people?"
This is a critical period when the jedi and sith are both down and out. These are the last of them. The time is ripe for something new to come out of their ashes NOW, not 10+ generations later.
They're likely not going Grey Jedi or anything else like a new order. Watching enough interviews and it's pretty evident each director was given ALOT of lee-way to just do whatever, which means there isn't some iron narrative binding them.
Also, Rey isn't making anything new. She literally took the Jedi texts with her when she left Luke. You can see them in the end scenes. Yoda even tells Luke "they do not possess anything she does not already have" (paraphrase) in what appears to be a wink to that fact.
Rey's a Jedi and Kylo's a Sith (or Dark Jedi if you want to get technical). That's where we are.
As for me, I voted conflicted. Some of this movie was really great, but Rose was completely unnecessary AND trivialized Finn in his own story to such an extent that you can literally cut him out of the film and it's fine. Plus it ruined the Finn/Poe bromance by denying it screentime.
Luke's reveal was all wrong; I agree with Mark Hamill that Luke, the most hopeful man in the Galaxy who alone believed (and did) turn Darth Vader to the Light would never think his nephew was unredeemable and had to die. He also wouldn't mope about it for 30 years (though he is a whiner so he'd definitely mope some I think). His death made no sense from a meta perspective either. If you're going to kill him, put him on the planet and give him a Vader hallway scene ala Rogue One. If you aren't THEN do the cool mass Force projection trick.
The Darkside pit had a lot of build up to do jack all too. Wasted pit device (har har I made a pun).
Conversely, I liked Holdo, though she should've lived and Akbar gotten the sacrifice. She can step into a combo Leia/Mothma role for future films that way.
Rian Johnson is heading up the next trillogy. Disney has made him the Kevin Fiege of episodes 10-12.So look at episode 8. Time for the Jedi to end. No dark jedi apprentice. The Jedi texts so the knowledge isn't lost but can be used as a foundation for something new. Yoda says its time for it to end. Luke says its time for it to end. Snoak and Kylo say time to end.
You're wrong here. Johnson isn't in charge of any more main series trilogies. He's getting a trilogy of spin-offs.
The filmmaker is already planning his new Star Wars trilogy, which will be set outside the on-going saga.
Rian Johnson is already in the planning stages for his new Star Wars trilogy, which will be far removed from the on-going Star Wars saga and take audiences to even more unexpected places.
He's no Kevin Feige and he has no role to play in the main series anymore. You're going down a rabbit hole made by one director with no more input that the next director has literally zero obligation to follow.
Ridley and Driver have both said they are not in the next trilogy and 9 is likely their last SW movie.
Okay? Doesn't so anything for me one way or the other. Daisy's doing the best she can with a terribly written character. Driver's having a lot more success but he's not irreplaceable.
As for Rose and Finn, their plot was about giving Finn a reason to believe in the resistance. Finn wasn't actually FOR the resistance yet. He was only about getting away from the First Order. Rose showed him the people who got hurt by the first Order and by the end of it Finn gained a conviction to not just leave the first order but to actually fight against it. Before that casino bit Finn was only doing what he could to help his 2 friends (Rey and Poe) and otherwise to just get away. After that he was willing to die to help the resistance.
This is off too. Finn went through this entire arc in the Force Awakens. Johnson just felt like redoing it for who knows what reason. Not to mention, Finn literally says that he's trying to get the locator for Rey off the ship so she doesn't jump into a trap. That's no abandoning the resistance. Finn abandoning them was a misperception of Rose's (that it seems bad cinematography pushed onto a lot of audience members). Finn didn't go to Starkiller base just for Rey and Poe.
He hasn't moped for 30 years. He maybe Mopeds for the last 10-15? How old Is driver in these movies? How old was he when he turned?
Hamill (and thus Luke) is pushing 70. Return of the Jedi came out 34 years ago. It's a good approximate, but yes, it might be more like 15.
The Darkside pit showed the lure of the Darkside on Rey. She literally explains it's pull, it's promise, and how those promises are empty. That it feeds on your desires. I think the pit did a better job of showing how tempting the darkside can be to someone just starting out with the force then 1-3 ever did.
Yeah that's my point. They TALKED about the pit a lot, but when she actually goes INTO it nothing much happens and it's all rather ho-hum. That's no darkside temptation. Do you remember when Luke went into the cave on Dagobah? He was confronted by Vader except it was actually him under the helmet. It was a symbolic message of how killing Vader would make him become Vader. Rey just snapped her fingers at mirror world and looked at a fuzzy reflection.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Lands is a swindler, a smoothie and an administrator. His talent lies in interpersonal skills. Having him be a master computer hacker would be asinine. Either you respect the source material or you create fansploosh.
Yeah, Lando the Hacker wouldn't be an improvement.
Lando running the Casino as a money-laundering operation for the Resistance, employing a number of hackers? That would be an improvement.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Lands is a swindler, a smoothie and an administrator. His talent lies in interpersonal skills. Having him be a master computer hacker would be asinine. Either you respect the source material or you create fansploosh.
Yeah, Lando the Hacker wouldn't be an improvement.
Lando running the Casino as a money-laundering operation for the Resistance, employing a number of hackers? That would be an improvement.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Lands is a swindler, a smoothie and an administrator. His talent lies in interpersonal skills. Having him be a master computer hacker would be asinine. Either you respect the source material or you create fansploosh.
Yeah, Lando the Hacker wouldn't be an improvement.
Lando running the Casino as a money-laundering operation for the Resistance, employing a number of hackers? That would be an improvement.
I'd be interested to find out whether the whole "Star Wars is dead to me!" crowd were into the EU at all and if so which parts, or just OT fans.
I suspect there might be a strong correlation between the more...visceral dislike of TLJ, and people who didn't like the EU or who only liked the EU novels that essentially retold the OT story with a few first names changed around.
I quite enjoyed it, despite a few flaws here & there, but then I've spent the 25 years since I first saw ANH reading books and comics, and playing games, that cast the light/dark conflict and the importance of balance etc in a similar way to TLJ and which have made Star Wars bigger for me than just the OT and the Skywalkers.
And lets be honest, they couldn't make a new "main saga" without trampling all over the story of the OT, because the story of the OT was *finished*. The goodies won, the baddies were vanquished or redeemed, The End. And that's borne out by a lot of the EU stuff that did try and carry on directly from the OT, which pretty much told the same tale over and over again because they were too afraid to "diminish" the victory of the Alliance and Luke.
Yodhrin wrote: I'd be interested to find out whether the whole "Star Wars is dead to me!" crowd were into the EU at all and if so which parts, or just OT fans.
I suspect there might be a strong correlation between the more...visceral dislike of TLJ, and people who didn't like the EU or who only liked the EU novels that essentially retold the OT story with a few first names changed around.
.
Well, I was middling on the movie and read Bunches of EU as a teen. Probably Thrawn trilogy was the best.
I thought TFA was OK but did not like TLJ. I also didn't care for a lot of EU stuff. The Rogue Squadron books were good and enjoyed playing KotOR. My favorite stuff was the early, fairly radical Dark Horse stuff - Dark Empire and Tales of the Jedi.
Yodhrin wrote: I'd be interested to find out whether the whole "Star Wars is dead to me!" crowd were into the EU at all and if so which parts, or just OT fans.
I suspect there might be a strong correlation between the more...visceral dislike of TLJ, and people who didn't like the EU or who only liked the EU novels that essentially retold the OT story with a few first names changed around.
I quite enjoyed it, despite a few flaws here & there, but then I've spent the 25 years since I first saw ANH reading books and comics, and playing games, that cast the light/dark conflict and the importance of balance etc in a similar way to TLJ and which have made Star Wars bigger for me than just the OT and the Skywalkers.
And lets be honest, they couldn't make a new "main saga" without trampling all over the story of the OT, because the story of the OT was *finished*. The goodies won, the baddies were vanquished or redeemed, The End. And that's borne out by a lot of the EU stuff that did try and carry on directly from the OT, which pretty much told the same tale over and over again because they were too afraid to "diminish" the victory of the Alliance and Luke.
I read a lot of the EU, but didn't really love most of it. I liked the Thrawn trilogy and the Vision duology, the Han Solo and Lando Calrissian trilogies, many of the short stories, and generally preferred the stuff that didn't stick to the main characters or retell the OT with a new Darkside user. There was a lot of crap and even more repetitive filler that wasn't even bad enough to be memorable. Far too many of the stories just didn't feel like Star Wars, including some of the highly regarded X-Wing novels. I was already done reading Star Wars for a while when the NJO came out; it sounded like a concept that might refresh the Star Wars setting, so I checked it out enough to be terribly disappointed. I happen to think Disney made the right call dumping the EU, but they could do worse than sift the wreckage for diamonds. In fact, they are doing worse.
The EU didn't really kill my love for Star Wars. It was fan fiction, and my personal Star Wars canon never included anything but the highlights. It was the prequels that made me realize Star Wars is dead, like Latin is a dead language. The prequels can be Star Wars French, and TLJ is SW emojis, living languages that in no way affect the original.
But then, I don't dislike TLJ. I just agree with all the criticisms and that it isn't real Star Wars. It's like a less well written Orville for the OT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: I'd be interested to find out whether the whole "Star Wars is dead to me!" crowd were into the EU at all and if so which parts, or just OT fans.
I suspect there might be a strong correlation between the more...visceral dislike of TLJ, and people who didn't like the EU or who only liked the EU novels that essentially retold the OT story with a few first names changed around.
I quite enjoyed it, despite a few flaws here & there, but then I've spent the 25 years since I first saw ANH reading books and comics, and playing games, that cast the light/dark conflict and the importance of balance etc in a similar way to TLJ and which have made Star Wars bigger for me than just the OT and the Skywalkers.
And lets be honest, they couldn't make a new "main saga" without trampling all over the story of the OT, because the story of the OT was *finished*. The goodies won, the baddies were vanquished or redeemed, The End. And that's borne out by a lot of the EU stuff that did try and carry on directly from the OT, which pretty much told the same tale over and over again because they were too afraid to "diminish" the victory of the Alliance and Luke.
I read a lot of the EU, but didn't really love most of it. I liked the Thrawn trilogy and the Vision duology, the Han Solo and Lando Calrissian trilogies, many of the short stories, and generally preferred the stuff that didn't stick to the main characters or retell the OT with a new Darkside user. There was a lot of crap and even more repetitive filler that wasn't even bad enough to be memorable. Far too many of the stories just didn't feel like Star Wars, including some of the highly regarded X-Wing novels. I was already done reading Star Wars for a while when the NJO came out; it sounded like a concept that might refresh the Star Wars setting, so I checked it out enough to be terribly disappointed. I happen to think Disney made the right call dumping the EU, but they could do worse than sift the wreckage for diamonds. In fact, they are doing worse.
The EU didn't really kill my love for Star Wars. It was fan fiction, and my personal Star Wars canon never included anything but the highlights. It was the prequels that made me realize Star Wars is dead, like Latin is a dead language. The prequels can be Star Wars French, and TLJ is SW emojis, living languages that in no way affect the original.
But then, I don't dislike TLJ. I just agree with all the criticisms and that it isn't real Star Wars. It's like a less well written Orville for the OT.
And lets be honest, they couldn't make a new "main saga" without trampling all over the story of the OT, because the story of the OT was *finished*. The goodies won, the baddies were vanquished or redeemed, The End. And that's borne out by a lot of the EU stuff that did try and carry on directly from the OT, which pretty much told the same tale over and over again because they were too afraid to "diminish" the victory of the Alliance and Luke.
I think that's only a problem in the way they did it, setting up a new outfit in an Empire costume, and having a mini-Rebel alliance that is inexplicably separate from the Republic they reformed. It's a big galaxy with an absurd amount of room for a lot of stories.
Had they gone with something that developed naturally from the end of the originally trilogy, say Luke-as-Merlin training a small group of students, and Leia as Republic Representative sending out a small group of agents to investigate rumours of a rising threat, they could have done a lot without rehashing the OT, trampling it, or denying that as a chapter, the OT was over. While certainly people wanted to see the original characters, at 20 years after 'the end,' the appropriate nod to that is as teachers or officials sending out the next generation and keeping them at the intro and outro, or maybe a brief surprise during the middle arc. The beat for beat rehash of TFA was a 'safe' choice but a poor one- too many elements don't fit. And switching to Johnson as director (and main writer) was a painfully poor choice, both for his own relative inexperience, but also for his refusal to engage with what Abrams, Kasdan and Arndt (the other writers for TFA) had set up.
As for the EU, I'm fairly ambivalent about it. Read some, didn't really like the Thrawn trilogy: mostly because of Thrawn, because 'the art of the <species> means they'll turn left when exiting hyperspace' is ridiculously stupid and casually racist (seriously, what does Michelangelo's David say about Italian driving habits? His entire 'genius' requires racism to be scientifically accurate, and species to be uniform down to the individual captain or pilot), though also the wacky anti-force hijinks intersecting with cloning.
Liked many of the SW computer games, particularly the RPGs and X-wing/tie fighter games).
Liked RO, disliked TFA, though TLJ makes me feel I was too harsh about TFA, which makes me believe I shouldn't lower my standards just because the most recent movie was worse than I actually thought possible. Yes, with low expectations and a generally negative view, I was still disappointed by how bad TLJ actually was.
But I pretty much place the blame firmly on the directors and writers. The actors seemed fine enough, but the characters were pretty mediocre and not developed nearly enough, and the storytelling was outright poor to awful. I could see where the intent was in TFA, and some of what needed to be there (or in a couple cases, what needed not to be there) to get a better film, but it was rushed and trying to hit a different movie's (the original's) patterns. TLJ is just a mess of unrelated and largely pointless stories about caricatures smeared under a thick coating of CGI spectacle.
I actually liked TFA, could possible be my favorite of the series.
I had fun with this movie. At least it kept my CGI a.d.d. at bay. I had to trudge through the last hour of Rogue One, and got no real pay off. I cant even bother with the Marvel movies anymore because a 30 minute laser light show gets real boring quickly for me. Also, after seeing Adam Driver on Girls, Kylo Ren is just funny as all hell.
Yodhrin wrote: I'd be interested to find out whether the whole "Star Wars is dead to me!" crowd were into the EU at all and if so which parts, or just OT fans.
I suspect there might be a strong correlation between the more...visceral dislike of TLJ, and people who didn't like the EU or who only liked the EU novels that essentially retold the OT story with a few first names changed around.
I quite enjoyed it, despite a few flaws here & there, but then I've spent the 25 years since I first saw ANH reading books and comics, and playing games, that cast the light/dark conflict and the importance of balance etc in a similar way to TLJ and which have made Star Wars bigger for me than just the OT and the Skywalkers.
And lets be honest, they couldn't make a new "main saga" without trampling all over the story of the OT, because the story of the OT was *finished*. The goodies won, the baddies were vanquished or redeemed, The End. And that's borne out by a lot of the EU stuff that did try and carry on directly from the OT, which pretty much told the same tale over and over again because they were too afraid to "diminish" the victory of the Alliance and Luke.
My first, last, and ONLY foray into the EU stuff was I, Jedi. That swill swore me off novelizations for life. Hell, also swore me off Trek novelizations while it was at it. I stick with only celluloid and video game media as canon. Period. Occasionally, as was the case with the Star Trek game that came out between the two Abrams Trek movies, I am richly rewarded.
I will give it another watch sometime to see if it affects my opinion.
Is there any explanation given at all for the space battles oddities? (Ie. Poe casually crippling the dreadnought. Why the FO fleet can't overwhelm and crush the few remaining Resistance capital ships.)
Eldarain wrote: I will give it another watch sometime to see if it affects my opinion.
Is there any explanation given at all for the space battles oddities? (Ie. Poe casually crippling the dreadnought. Why the FO fleet can't overwhelm and crush the few remaining Resistance capital ships.)
No. That isn't really something SW does in general, but Johnson is pretty vocal that explaining things is not something he's willing to do
Crazyterran wrote: The only good book series in the entire EU was the Xwing series, with Stackpole/Allston at the head of those.
Stackpole was the no talent hack that wrote I, Jedi. That book is indefensible.
He did rather well with several of the signature books of Battletech. No idea what the issues are with 'I, Jedi,' but "no talent hack" is not particularly accurate. He'd never stack up with great writers of literature, but is perfectly serviceable with pulp sci-fi (which SW is)
ChargerIIC wrote: Oh you poor man, you gave DakkaDakka a chance to roll in salt.
(reads that post, reads rest of thread)
Man, you weren't kidding!
ChargerIIC wrote: Just bear in mind that we aren't representative of larger society
I'm amused that for all the venom-spitting in the comments, the actual "Did you like it?" poll stands at 53% yes, 35% no and 12% uncertain. I guess the people who liked it are steering clear of posting and getting jumped on.
For me, it was a mixed bag, but I find the bits I like are sticking with me more than the bits I didn't like.
Compel wrote: Heh... I, Jedi is one of my favourite Star Wars books, with Corran Horn one of my favourite Star Wars characters.
I chucked most of my EU books (kept the Thrawn 5 and Tales), but damn do I regret donating I, Jedi. That was one of the better ones. That story and his appearance in the Interlude at Darknell (sp?) novella really developed Horn's character well. But the whole 'point' shtick annoyed the piss out of me immediately.
I walked out feeling okay. Not great about. Didn't really buy the new Luke. Was upset that we still have NO IDEA who Snoke is, or what happened to/with the Knights of Ren.
Just so many questions not answered or answered in a totally disappointing way.
Galef wrote: Just watched it a second time. It's even better on repeat viewings!
I beg to differ. It was a bit better the second time, but only because the unwashed masses weren't cheering the whole time. Still had its good moments but was a decidedly mediocre movie.
Compel wrote:Heh... I, Jedi is one of my favourite Star Wars books, with Corran Horn one of my favourite Star Wars characters.
trexmeyer wrote:
Compel wrote: Heh... I, Jedi is one of my favourite Star Wars books, with Corran Horn one of my favourite Star Wars characters.
I chucked most of my EU books (kept the Thrawn 5 and Tales), but damn do I regret donating I, Jedi. That was one of the better ones. That story and his appearance in the Interlude at Darknell (sp?) novella really developed Horn's character well. But the whole 'point' shtick annoyed the piss out of me immediately.
I am truly glad you like them, and glad that there is a market for them, but I prefer my novelizations to have established legacy characters actually act in a manner that is in line with their behaviors. I detested Corran basically correcting Luke constantly and second guessing everything he was being taught, and the resolution to pretty much EVERYTHING in that book was fast and unfulfilling. Tension between Corran and the student where it was of a romantic nature: popped up out of nowhere and dismissed just as quickly. Could have not even BEEN there and the story wouldn't have been affected. A planet dies, and there is really no reason for anyone to care other than mass murder is bad. The whole build up with the missing wife which is resolved in a haphazard fashion, almost a Deadpool level quip fest. Yeah, I gave my copy away, and I felt guilty about that, solely because someone else wound up reading it. Hopefully he actually enjoyed it.
Even ESB had similar criticisms when it came out and we all know how ESB has stood the test of time
I'm just going to file this one under "Strawman".
So I had to look up what "Strawman" meant, to which I must ask: What fallacy exactly am I arguing?
I am simply making the point that many (but not all) of the arguments against TLJ could easily have been claimed against ESB had the interwebz existed back then.
TLJ is not what anyone expected. This could be a good thing for the franchise, but only time with tell.
Something I noticed on repeat viewings is how this very message is in the film itself.
Not only does Kylo repeatedly say "Let the past die", but later Rose says something like "I saved you, and that's how we win: Not but fighting what we hate, but by saving what we love"
This is a not-so-subtle node to the fans that SW is going to change, rather than nerd rage against the things you don't like, cherish the things that are awesome (like the amazing fight sequence against the Praetorian guard, for example)
I voted conflicted, because while I certainly didn't consider it a complete dumpster fire, it wasn't a great movie. It was alright, and certainly did have some cool stuff, but it also had some stuff that just had me saying "WTF?"
Even ESB had similar criticisms when it came out and we all know how ESB has stood the test of time
I'm just going to file this one under "Strawman".
So I had to look up what "Strawman" meant, to which I must ask: What fallacy exactly am I arguing?
I am simply making the point that many (but not all) of the arguments against TLJ could easily have been claimed against ESB had the interwebz existed back then.
TLJ is not what anyone expected. This could be a good thing for the franchise, but only time with tell.
Something I noticed on repeat viewings is how this very message is in the film itself.
Not only does Kylo repeatedly say "Let the past die", but later Rose says something like "I saved you, and that's how we win: Not but fighting what we hate, but by saving what we love"
This is a not-so-subtle node to the fans that SW is going to change, rather than nerd rage against the things you don't like, cherish the things that are awesome (like the amazing fight sequence against the Praetorian guard, for example)
I actually was not impressed with that scene, part of that is just theatrical movie fight choreography looking stupid, partly because of how badly the Worf treatment the guards got was, and Rey really has absolutely no actual combat training which the Force isn't going to just natively teach her
More to the point, at least personally, even setting aside all the issues with narrative disconnect to other films, it was still an unengaging/incoherent story that didn't make me really care about most of the characters and left me feeling like I'd watched another Marvel flick (which, ok, if I'd only wanted 2 hours of CG explosions, great, but it wasn't). That said, if you're building on a well known Saga, when your failing to connect the narrative threads, that's not a problem the Audience should be responsible for, or should have to be ok with just accepting. I think reading anything from the dialogue of the movie and applying that as some not-so-subtle motto for the franchise may be reading a bit much into it. "Let go" comes up in every Star Wars movie at some point about something, right back to Luke's trench run.
Even ESB had similar criticisms when it came out and we all know how ESB has stood the test of time
I'm just going to file this one under "Strawman".
So I had to look up what "Strawman" meant, to which I must ask: What fallacy exactly am I arguing?
I am simply making the point that many (but not all) of the arguments against TLJ could easily have been claimed against ESB had the interwebz existed back then.
TLJ is not what anyone expected. This could be a good thing for the franchise, but only time with tell.
Something I noticed on repeat viewings is how this very message is in the film itself.
Not only does Kylo repeatedly say "Let the past die", but later Rose says something like "I saved you, and that's how we win: Not but fighting what we hate, but by saving what we love"
This is a not-so-subtle node to the fans that SW is going to change, rather than nerd rage against the things you don't like, cherish the things that are awesome (like the amazing fight sequence against the Praetorian guard, for example)
-
re ESb vs TLJ - well unlike many people ESB is not my fav SW film - but it has none of the Pacing and plot issues that I have with TLJ. ESB did not feel hugely overlong.
Compare and contrast the escape scene from ESb and TLJ - both fims have a great action scene prior to the rebels escape.
Then ESB then gets one with the film. character development and the plot. TLJ doesn't.
Rather TLJ has the most dull, stupid and drawn out and above all else slow chase scene that i have ever scene. No tension, no interst just poor narrative
And its not as if it's there to allow for interesting stuff to happen - it appears to be just their so the director can mess about with some frankly dull CGI and visit Casino world - which in itself has little if nay redeeming features.
Yeah the fight scene in the super giant ship is cool - but its a breath of fresh air that only manged to keep me from falling asleep amognst all the dross.
ChargerIIC wrote: Oh you poor man, you gave DakkaDakka a chance to roll in salt.
Just bear in mind that we aren't representative of larger society
Lol
Having seen it a second time, I absolutely love it. Well worth seeing again if you're conflicted - it's a very different experience!
Also, to the "representative" point, actual audience polls show the "like" rate at 89% - identical to Rogue One, just below TFA. I have a link for that but it's not handy atm...
I really enjoyed it. It was a lot of fun. Mostly stupid, thoughtless, visually stimulating, action nonsense fun.
Yes it's impossible to justify a tonne of gaping plot holes, stupid flaws, superfluous characters and plots, pointless dramas and the name Snook but its not like any of that was spoiling my enjoyment of the thing while I watched it.
It all just undermines any possible appreciation you had for the film afterwards, like when you've had time to think about it.
Like for example. Wow, loved the bombers. Sooo cool visually, pure Star Wars-space ship style- all messy and non-Streamlined, cause you know, space going vessels don't need aerodynamics. Giant racks of bombs just primed and ready to be dropped down upon the... Hang on, wouldn't that need gravity... Ah shoot.
theCrowe wrote: Like for example. Wow, loved the bombers. Sooo cool visually, pure Star Wars-space ship style- all messy and non-Streamlined, cause you know, space going vessels don't need aerodynamics. Giant racks of bombs just primed and ready to be dropped down upon the... Hang on, wouldn't that need gravity... Ah shoot.
To which I would argue: How do the crew and pilots of those bombers keep their feet to the floor of the bomber? How did Paige "fall" while inside the bomber
Answer: the bomber has artificial gravity inside it, which allows the bombs to "fall". Once outside the bomber, they continue to "fall" because of the momentum generated from the artificial gravity inside the bomber.
Why is that so hard? I've seen this complaint several times and it kills me that it doesn't make sense to so many people. Just think it through
Gordon Shumway wrote: The art book explains that the bombers use magnetism first to eject (repel) from the bombers and then to be attracted to their targets.
See! Plenty of explanations. One really cool one from an extra source, or my explanation that doesn't rely on extra info, just common sense.
Either explanation works, pick the one you like most and just enjoy the movie!
Like, powered rails (ala railgun), ramping the bombs down, through a visible force field so that they slam into the ship.
Or, perhaps, attaching rockets to the bombs. Instead it's, "I've just sat through a particularly overlong joke about being on hold and am now being faced with this..."
Gordon Shumway wrote: The art book explains that the bombers use magnetism first to eject (repel) from the bombers and then to be attracted to their targets.
See! Plenty of explanations. One really cool one from an extra source, or my explanation that doesn't rely on extra info, just common sense.
Either explanation works, pick the one you like most and just enjoy the movie!
-
I was not bothered by the bombing bit - it was a fun action sequence that gave me hope for the film then it was sadly dashed by the sludge that followed.
I was far more bothered by the sheer length and tedium of much of the rest of the film, the trip to casino world in particular and the worst paced, worst filmed "chase scene" I have ever seen which completely lacked any kind of narrative tension or indeed inteligence in the plot that set it up and continued it.
I enjoyed TFA, I hated TLJ and won't bother going to the cinema for the next one. No I don't care about the EU, yes I like powerful women in film.
theCrowe wrote: Like for example. Wow, loved the bombers. Sooo cool visually, pure Star Wars-space ship style- all messy and non-Streamlined, cause you know, space going vessels don't need aerodynamics. Giant racks of bombs just primed and ready to be dropped down upon the... Hang on, wouldn't that need gravity... Ah shoot.
To which I would argue: How do the crew and pilots of those bombers keep their feet to the floor of the bomber? How did Paige "fall" while inside the bomber
Answer: the bomber has artificial gravity inside it, which allows the bombs to "fall". Once outside the bomber, they continue to "fall" because of the momentum generated from the artificial gravity inside the bomber.
Why is that so hard? I've seen this complaint several times and it kills me that it doesn't make sense to so many people. Just think it through
-
Because gravity doesn't work like that? The attraction wouldn't magically stop at the threshold of the bay doors, and the bombs wouldn't have enough momentum not to be pulled back towards the ship that 'dropped' them. So they'd either be slowed to the point of uselessness, or be an active danger to the bomber.
Magnetism has the same sort of problems. It isn't specific to the targets (assuming they're made out of sufficient metals, which is quite an assumption), and at the distances involved, would be attracted to something closer to the bomb... ie, the launching ship.
These are terrible 'explanations' if you think them through.
Compel wrote: Wouldn't it have been neat if they showed that?
Like, powered rails (ala railgun), ramping the bombs down, through a visible force field so that they slam into the ship.
Or, perhaps, attaching rockets to the bombs. Instead it's, "I've just sat through a particularly overlong joke about being on hold and am now being faced with this..."
You're kidding right? People in space ships that are NOT floating around IS showing you there is artificial gravity. Never in a SW movie have we ever seen people floating in space (until Leia anyway)
In order for this to happen, artificial grav HAS to exist
Once the bombs pass this artificial downward pull, they would just continue to move in that direction (i.e. "down"). What do you think would have happened if Rose's sister didn't hit that grid when she fell down the shaft? She would have kept "falling". Apply this logic to the bombs.
If that isn't "good enough" for you, there is the even cooler (and canon) magnets explanation. done.
theCrowe wrote: Like for example. Wow, loved the bombers. Sooo cool visually, pure Star Wars-space ship style- all messy and non-Streamlined, cause you know, space going vessels don't need aerodynamics. Giant racks of bombs just primed and ready to be dropped down upon the... Hang on, wouldn't that need gravity... Ah shoot.
To which I would argue: How do the crew and pilots of those bombers keep their feet to the floor of the bomber? How did Paige "fall" while inside the bomber
Answer: the bomber has artificial gravity inside it, which allows the bombs to "fall". Once outside the bomber, they continue to "fall" because of the momentum generated from the artificial gravity inside the bomber.
Why is that so hard? I've seen this complaint several times and it kills me that it doesn't make sense to so many people. Just think it through
-
Because gravity doesn't work like that? The attraction wouldn't magically stop at the threshold of the bay doors, and the bombs wouldn't have enough momentum not to be pulled back towards the ship that 'dropped' them. So they'd either be slowed to the point of uselessness, or be an active danger to the bomber.
Magnetism has the same sort of problems. It isn't specific to the targets (assuming they're made out of sufficient metals, which is quite an assumption), and at the distances involved, would be attracted to something closer to the bomb... ie, the launching ship.
These are terrible 'explanations' if you think them through.
Electromagnets. Just reverse the polarity when they are closer to the target than the bomber. Heck the target doesn't even need to be magnetic, just negative polarity to release them from the bomber. More like a dumb bomb. Pretty simple explanation, if you think it through.
Nope, not kidding. It's also not a particularly big deal for me when it came to the film but, when one isn't particularly enjoying something, seeing things like that which cause a skeptical eyebrow raise, does not continue to endear someone towards the film.
It helps dig deeper into a negative experience trough that makes it harder for the good parts of the film to dig out of.
Ultimately, I never really was pulled out of that trough.
You guys did see that the same film showed TIE fighters with missiles that blew out the command deck, right? In a franchise where previous bombs flew out of the front of fighters and freighters, once even making a hard, right-angle turn into an exhaust port to strike some space station's vulnerable innards. Remember that? Where some backwater smuggler could afford to pimp out his U-Haul into some kind of fighter-killing, attack mission-leading, Death Star reactor-bombing son of a bantha?
The bombers also had the cruciform look of WW2 bombers, far more on the nose than any previous Star Wars designs. Everyone knows that Star Wars ships may fly like WW2 fighters, but they are supposed to look like something the producer saw at lunch time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not that the scene wasn't gorgeous or inspiring.
Compel wrote: ...., seeing things like that which cause a skeptical eyebrow raise, does not continue to endear someone towards the film.
Ya know, I feel this sentiment highlights a problem with this generation. We are too quick to be bored and thus hyper analyze everything. It's like we are WANTING to raise that skeptical eyebrow
To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....
Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.
Lance845 wrote: To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....
Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.
The whole SW universe basically runs on magic.
But there has to be some consistency, rules that govern the magic, or there is no dramatic tension.
Lance845 wrote: To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....
Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.
The whole SW universe basically runs on magic.
Well the official guidebook says, the MG-100 Starfortress pushes its payload out of its containment rack with “sequenced electromagnetic plates,” and the proton bombs then are “drawn magnetically to their unfortunate targets." So at least some thought has been put into it.
That said, the film"s production designer, Rick Heinrichs says, "Well, I think that the language of a Star Wars film, the graphic language, the way the details are presented… There’s a very sophisticated approach to how tech is approached. It’s done in a very graphic way that doesn’t necessarily invite the audience to study it too hard. It just looks really cool as a background element. And it doesn’t get the audience hung up on the hardware, if you will." So you aren't really wrong either.
What do we know about him? He's evidently a sith lord in the model of the former Emperor.
He's possessed of enough power to corrupt Ben Solo, presumably by the same means he's using to try to corrupt Rey.
He's not as gifted in the old mind reading as he lets on.
His demise has not resulted in the immenant collapse of the First Order or society or whatever.
My brother complained about zero back story for Snoke and then he's dead. I get where he's coming from but honestly would a small flashback of a young homeless Snoke scratching a living by painting postcards on imperial Coruscant really help. Do we need a framed picture of the Sith class of 83 with Snoke and Vader as BFF's sitting on his dresser? Do we really need the long and tedious expositional lineage of master/apprentice to help us peg exactly where in the grand scheme of things this bald goon belongs?
I say nah- kill him off- don't care- lets just give the demonstrably unready apprentice absolute power and see what happens.
I'm just glad the boys in red got a decent innings before they snuffed it. Thought for a moment they were just going to look at eachother, shrug and salute Kylo Ren. Meet the new Boss, you know.
Lance845 wrote: To everyone looking for physics to explain why the bombs work the way they do or the gravity, or magnetism, or anything in SW....
Again, SW isn't Sci Fi. It's Future Fantasy (that takes place a long time ago). Nothing in SW actually works according to any physical laws. Looking for a reason why the bombs would drop is like wondering how a guy can shoot lightning out of his hands or a ship with 4 engines facing directly behind it can lift strait off the ground without upsetting any dust or knocking anyone down.
The whole SW universe basically runs on magic.
But there has to be some consistency, rules that govern the magic, or there is no dramatic tension.
There IS consistency. The rules don't have to be explicitly stated for you to follow them. The ships, people, and everything else isn't doing anything now in SW that they wern't doing before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
theCrowe wrote: Ok, lets look at Snook Doggy Snoke for a minute.
What do we know about him? He's evidently a sith lord in the model of the former Emperor.
No hes not. The sith followed the rule of 2. Snoke isn't decended from that AND trained Kylo and his knights of Ren (multiples... i.e. not 2).
He's possessed of enough power to corrupt Ben Solo, presumably by the same means he's using to try to corrupt Rey.
It doesn't take power to corrupt. It taken fagile weakness. Ben was scared. Ben was unsure. Snoke built on that and pushed it.
He's not as gifted in the old mind reading as he lets on.
His demise has not resulted in the immenant collapse of the First Order or society or whatever.
My brother complained about zero back story for Snoke and then he's dead. I get where he's coming from but honestly would a small flashback of a young homeless Snoke scratching a living by painting postcards on imperial Coruscant really help. Do we need a framed picture of the Sith class of 83 with Snoke and Vader as BFF's sitting on his dresser? Do we really need the long and tedious expositional lineage of master/apprentice to help us peg exactly where in the grand scheme of things this bald goon belongs?
I say nah- kill him off- don't care- lets just give the demonstrably unready apprentice absolute power and see what happens.
Agree with this. We knew as much about snoke at his Time of Death as we did about Palpatine. Why is Snoke under scrutiny for it was Emp P never was?
Compel wrote: Wouldn't it have been neat if they showed that?
Maybe?
Or it might have just been uneccessary detail. I don't recall anyone ever insisting that RotJ needed am explanation of how thermal detonators work for the scene in Jabba's palace. We just assumed from the context that it was some sort of scary explosive.
Same thing here. They're bombers. They have bombs. The captain of the Dreadnought is worried about them, so it's safe to assume the bombs work, even if the movie doesn't waste time explaining how.
Compel wrote: ...., seeing things like that which cause a skeptical eyebrow raise, does not continue to endear someone towards the film.
Ya know, I feel this sentiment highlights a problem with this generation. We are too quick to be bored and thus hyper analyze everything. It's like we are WANTING to raise that skeptical eyebrow
-
I went with two other people - one was in her thirties, we are in our forties. Only one of us is a big Star Warsfan and he did not like TFA -w did.
We all hated the film due to terrible pacing and plot.
Compel wrote: Of course, that all depends on what generation you assume I am.
My apologies. I was not trying to make any assumption about anyone. I was referencing the "culture of the day", so maybe generation was the wrong word.
I've witnessed people from older generations than myself exhibit the same kind of behavior (being quick to judge and over analyze to the point of losing enjoyment of something that would have been just fine in the past)
I attribute this to the "internet culture" of the day. When you have a platform as expansive as the interwebz, anyone is a critic and it is (sadly) encouraged to critique everything, almost like it's a competition to see who can point out (or explain away) the most plot holes in movies.
I stand by my statement that had ESB come out during the internet age, very similar complaints as TLJ would also be hurled at it too.
Lance, the slow bombers with gravity-ish bombs, the technobabble plot points, and the hyperdrive ramming scene were all inconsistent with previous material. Heck, the parabolic path of the turbo lasers in deep space goes against established canon.
Next time there is a battle against overwhelming odds, the rebels will seem like idiots for forgetting they can just hyperram the bad guys away. Man, Admiral Raddus could have solved the end of Rogue One before the Death Star even showed up.
So as this post we stand at:
52% Liked
35% didn't
13% conflicted
If we rule out the conflicted (because they probably just need to see it again) and take into account that people that dislike something are more vocal than those who liked something, we can conclude the "most" people actually liked TLJ.
I'm ok with that.
Well, it's more complicated than that. Someone can enjoy the movie while agreeing that it is poor Star Wars that ultimately harms the overall narrative of the series.
Galef wrote: So as this post we stand at:
52% Liked
35% didn't
13% conflicted
If we rule out the conflicted (because they probably just need to see it again) and take into account that people that dislike something are more vocal than those who liked something, we can conclude the "most" people actually liked TLJ.
I'm ok with that.
-
Just shows how subjective films are -
You can legitmately say just over alf of those who watched it liked it which is what the stats actually say .
To add the opinion of someone with not much more interest in Star Wars than watching an entertaining sci-fi movie (yeah, I never had a problem with the prequels because I found them entertaining), I was baffled by Episode 8. Didn't seem to me to have much in common with what the earlier movies portrayed. Didn't meet my expectations in the least, and on top of that had an excessive amount of fluffy critters being cute.
I didn't even have a problem with the pacing per se. I'm used to sitting through long movies. Nets more explosions, right? But it didn't feel like anything actually happened, nor was there much in the way of character interaction.
@Galef:
I'd argue that blindingly accepting something without criticism hasn't been in fashion since the enlightenment came around and has nothing to do with the Internet. My question is, why is that a problem? As I said, I like the prequels. I seem to be quite in the minority for it. Doesn't bother me one bit. I get just as much enjoyment out of watching them as if everyone was of my opinion. Really, that's between me, my taste and the movies. Let people form their opinions.
On the point of Empire Strikes back, I agree to an extent. I watched that one with a critical eye once, and while that's been so long ago that I couldn't give a complete list of what I found to be wrong with the movie, I could find something to criticize in virtually every scene. For what is apparently the best Star Wars of all time, it raises a lot of eyebrows in my opinion.
However, and here is where I disagree, everything that happens in Empire Strikes Back is either relevant to the previous and following movie or happens for the sake of character development. We obviously don't know how Episode 8 and 9 interact, but as been pointed out in this thread, anything built up in Episode 7 is largely dismissed in Episode 8 and staple characters (timeless ones like the beeping trash can that don't have to worry about the actor's age) don't do anything. Instead we get new characters to replace characters that already replaced old characters. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense and adds about as much.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Lance, the slow bombers with gravity-ish bombs, the technobabble plot points, and the hyperdrive ramming scene were all inconsistent with previous material. Heck, the parabolic path of the turbo lasers in deep space goes against established canon.
Next time there is a battle against overwhelming odds, the rebels will seem like idiots for forgetting they can just hyperram the bad guys away. Man, Admiral Raddus could have solved the end of Rogue One before the Death Star even showed up.
They had plans for the Death Star. Hitting the reactor with a hyper jump would've been so much easy than recruiting a farmer to hit an exhaust port.
That shield generator on Endor? There's an easy target. Death Star 2 would have only taken at most the sacrifice of two ships.
Remember how they had to slog it all the way to the generator of Death Star +1? In the freezing cold to boot? They could have gotten that done so much easier.
If we rule out the conflicted (because they probably just need to see it again)
Or they're people having trouble coming to terms with admitting to themselves they watched a bad Star Wars movie? I remember coming out of the cinema having just sat through Phantom Menace, and on the way back to the bus station me and my two friends (we were 17-18) really did a good job trying to convince ourselves we'd seen something flawed but still great. The possibility that the film would be bad, or that we wouldn't like it hadn't even entered my head before seeing it. It was Star Wars, how could it fail? So we were giving it 'qualified success' reviews and would have likely answered any exit poll in that manner.
What I don't get is why there's such a push from people who love the film to change the narrative that a significant number of others don't. The 'liked' here is 52%, Rotten Tomatoes is 51% now but has been in the low 50s since launch. Seems to me to correlate? I'd happily accept (based on who I've spoken to in real life) that a little more than half of viewers gave it a thumbs up, even if I disagree with them. And yet we just get stories about hacking, and your massaging of numbers to boost how popular the film seems to be.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Lance, the slow bombers with gravity-ish bombs, the technobabble plot points, and the hyperdrive ramming scene were all inconsistent with previous material. Heck, the parabolic path of the turbo lasers in deep space goes against established canon.
Next time there is a battle against overwhelming odds, the rebels will seem like idiots for forgetting they can just hyperram the bad guys away. Man, Admiral Raddus could have solved the end of Rogue One before the Death Star even showed up.
Watch anything with tie bombers in space, which is in the animated canonical series, the bombs drop strait down. Also... Empire? Which one had tie bombers sweeping the asteroid while the MF was hiding in a giant space snake?
Hyperdrives having to navigate and set courses is not inconsistent. While we have never seen a ship ram another one that way, it's been said in starwars before that they have to set a navigation course otherwise risk ramming into major gavity sources or other objects.
Head canon wise, i suspect the reason it actually did what it did was because of proximity. The ships were so close that the cruiser never made it into actual hyper space, it just rapidly made a jump in speed and was still physically here when it collided. I have no real basis for this. It's all space magic anyway. The cruiser got into range to have this effect because the FO ships were not firing on it. So while they were progressing forward, it turned around into them before making the jump.
You're suggesting that TIE bombers only drop bombs down because in Empire they drop bombs down? (The animated series is not something I care to watch, and as part of the new, nonfilm canon is total BS anyway.). Even though the obvious answer is that the TIe bombers are not under attack, not flying full throttle, and don't want to dive at the asteroids again and again, thus they are aiming their launchers down? Again, remember when the proton torpedos in SW changed course?
They had to set course to avoid things like stars. If any solid object interacted with ships in hyperspace, there would be no FTL travel because of all the diffuse interstellar hydrogen, micro debris, etc. the Falcon would have been obliterated before it jumped out of hyperspace at Alderaan--remember that it came out in the middle of a debris field. Imperial procedure to dump garbage at their mustering points before going to light speed would be even more crazy.
I have the same head canon you do about the impact in TLJ, but it still sets up the question of why no one else ever used hyperspace ramming before. Hell, junky old fighters have hyperdrives and so do disposable probe droid delivery pods. They must be extremely cheap and plentiful.
For that matter, why did the transports on the Raddus not have hyperdrives? Even the shuttle that spends all its time on a Star Destroyer waiting to carry someone down to the planet next to the Star Destroyer has a hyperdrive.
The technobabble plot points refer to how the FO were tracking the resistance, necessitating a trip to OBSG's casino planet's uglier stepsister. The Star Wars universe has always done best when all events were a result of human actions or intents. The hyperspace tracking would have been more "Star Wars" as the result of human action rather than a new technology, such as a traitor in the resistance, the Force guiding Snoke or Ren, some arms dealer on planet Greed selling out his resistance clients for a fast,thematically appropriate buck, something like that.
Compel wrote: Of course, that all depends on what generation you assume I am.
My apologies. I was not trying to make any assumption about anyone. I was referencing the "culture of the day", so maybe generation was the wrong word.
I've witnessed people from older generations than myself exhibit the same kind of behavior (being quick to judge and over analyze to the point of losing enjoyment of something that would have been just fine in the past)
I attribute this to the "internet culture" of the day. When you have a platform as expansive as the interwebz, anyone is a critic and it is (sadly) encouraged to critique everything, almost like it's a competition to see who can point out (or explain away) the most plot holes in movies.
I stand by my statement that had ESB come out during the internet age, very similar complaints as TLJ would also be hurled at it too.
-
That happened long before the internet was a gleam in a 1200 baud modems eye. Before then even. It's no worse now than before computers became household items.
12 parsecs anyone? a slip of the pen by George get's rationalized by fans of the movie. the best advertisement is still word of mouth, we have always been critics and have recommended movies to friends and warned them away from the horrible ones, like highlander 2 and TLJ. Get this though, some people like movies others don't, *caugh*firefly*caugh* just because others don't like a movie you do for the same reasons you do, doesn't equate to some sad critic culture, it's just human nature. Don't get so offended when people don't like what you do.
I have the same head canon you do about the impact in TLJ, but it still sets up the question of why no one else ever used hyperspace ramming before. Hell, junky old fighters have hyperdrives and so do disposable probe droid delivery pods. They must be extremely cheap and plentiful.
Remembering that without the EU we have very little 'ever' to go on, my guess would be because it's really, really difficult to actually pull off, requiring a precise combination of being close enough to not be entirely transitioned into hyperspace while being far enough away to not simply get blown to pieces.
So it wouldn't work with smaller ships... They would get obliterated while they were lining themselves up just right.
For that matter, why did the transports on the Raddus not have hyperdrives? Even the shuttle that spends all its time on a Star Destroyer waiting to carry someone down to the planet next to the Star Destroyer has a hyperdrive.
Presumably because they're short-range transports that don't normally need a hyperdrive.
I have the same head canon you do about the impact in TLJ, but it still sets up the question of why no one else ever used hyperspace ramming before. Hell, junky old fighters have hyperdrives and so do disposable probe droid delivery pods. They must be extremely cheap and plentiful.
Remembering that without the EU we have very little 'ever' to go on, my guess would be because it's really, really difficult to actually pull off, requiring a precise combination of being close enough to not be entirely transitioned into hyperspace while being far enough away to not simply get blown to pieces.
So it wouldn't work with smaller ships... They would get obliterated while they were lining themselves up just right.
For that matter, why did the transports on the Raddus not have hyperdrives? Even the shuttle that spends all its time on a Star Destroyer waiting to carry someone down to the planet next to the Star Destroyer has a hyperdrive.
Presumably because they're short-range transports that don't normally need a hyperdrive.
A). I am pretty sure that the costs of buying a bunch of hyperdrives and shiel emitters are more than justified by the benefit of removing command ships, fleet yards, Death Stars and task forces with minimal loss of human life. It is pretty well established that the Rebellion had plenty of money/materiel and not enough people (and that's why even farm boys got to fly X-Wings).
It couldn't be too difficult to calculate given that Holdo managed it. If you need some reprogrammed astrometry droids to help with the calculations, I know a guy who's selling them second hand at quite a bargain.
B). They aren't TIE fighters shedding every bit of extraneous mass. The Resistance/Republic had plenty of money, and prior canon pretty much established that even local transports carried hyperdrives. It makes little sense for the Resistance to stock up on near-useless transports for their flagship.
A). I am pretty sure that the costs of buying a bunch of hyperdrives and shiel emitters are more than justified by the benefit of removing command ships, fleet yards, Death Stars and task forces with minimal loss of human life. It is pretty well established that the Rebellion had plenty of money/materiel and not enough people (and that's why even farm boys got to fly X-Wings).
Then there's obviously more to it... Otherwise everyone would be doing it...
It couldn't be too difficult to calculate given that Holdo managed it.
But did she mean to, or was she just aiming to ram them and got lucky?
Star Wars, remember?
B). They aren't TIE fighters shedding every bit of extraneous mass. The Resistance/Republic had plenty of money, and prior canon pretty much established that even local transports carried hyperdrives. It makes little sense for the Resistance to stock up on near-useless transports for their flagship.
Prior canon established that some local transports carried hyperdrives. Not that every single ship bigger than a tie fighter does.
There are any number of reasons for the Resistance to have those ships. The two most obvious being that they're on the run and using whatever they can get their hands on by that point, or that those transports came with the base.
A surface transport not having a hyperdrive isn't 'near useless' when they're only intended to be carried around from system to system on a bigger ship. Having plenty of money isn't a reason to waste or on hyperdrives that wouldn't normally be needed... And if the Resistance had limitless money, they would have a more effective fleet to begin with.
We all liked it. We all thought there were some silly plot holes. We all agreed that the film is written for narrative tension, not for consistency of internal logic and technical background and so on.
Star Wars has never been War And Peace. My daughter said, "Well, it's written for 12-year-olds." There's nothing wrong with that.
I was 16 when I saw the first Star Wars. Whilst I really enjoyed it, I didn't glom onto the whole SW obsession thing like boys 5 to 15 years younger did. I think that's the key age divide.
Something very few people remember is that when Star Wars was first shown, the opening crawl did not call it Star Wars IV. It was just Star Wars. The story was complete in itself.
The rest of the films got made because it was so successful that no-one wanted to leave money on the table.
That's the way it's going to be from now on. Disney will never make such a gakky SW film that it kills the franchise.
Kilkrazy wrote: I saw it yesterday with my wife and daughter.
We all liked it. We all thought there were some silly plot holes. We all agreed that the film is written for narrative tension, not for consistency of internal logic and technical background and so on.
Star Wars has never been War And Peace. My daughter said, "Well, it's written for 12-year-olds." There's nothing wrong with that.
I was 16 when I saw the first Star Wars. Whilst I really enjoyed it, I didn't glom onto the whole SW obsession thing like boys 5 to 15 years younger did. I think that's the key age divide.
Something very few people remember is that when Star Wars was first shown, the opening crawl did not call it Star Wars IV. It was just Star Wars. The story was complete in itself.
The rest of the films got made because it was so successful that no-one wanted to leave money on the table.
That's the way it's going to be from now on. Disney will never make such a gakky SW film that it kills the franchise.
Can I ask which bit you thought had a narrative tension? - we all thought it was so drawn out that it destroyed that element, except maybe some of the scenes between the two leads.
I assume that Disney will have now have a big casino in the Staw Wars theemed resorts - no other reason for that sequence.
For instance, the opening battle in which a single starfighter attacks a dreadnaught, to prepare a bombing attack which seems to go badly wrong, then seems to succeed, then suddenly turns into complete disaster, only to be saved by a last second do and die kick from a trapped bomb aimer, resulting in a mighty victory which turns to the ashes of defeat, only to become a relentless, slow, grinding tail chase during which numerous other dramatic occurrences take place on other planets, and so on.
Then the mini-story in which Rey is conned into surrendering herself to the Imperial command ship, only to be betrayed by Emo Jedi, only to be used cunningly as a stalking horse to betray Snoke, and then thinks Emo Jedi has become a good guy but he hasn't.
Loads of it makes no sense at all in objective view, but it carried me and my family along very well.
For instance, the opening battle in which a single starfighter attacks a dreadnaught, to prepare a bombing attack which seems to go badly wrong, then seems to succeed, then suddenly turns into complete disaster, only to be saved by a last second do and die kick from a trapped bomb aimer, resulting in a mighty victory which turns to the ashes of defeat, only to become a relentless, slow, grinding tail chase during which numerous other dramatic occurrences take place on other planets, and so on.
Then the mini-story in which Rey is conned into surrendering herself to the Imperial command ship, only to be betrayed by Emo Jedi, only to be used cunningly as a stalking horse to betray Snoke, and then thinks Emo Jedi has become a good guy but he hasn't.
Loads of it makes no sense at all in objective view, but it carried me and my family along very well.
Ah ok fair enough.
I liked the first sequence and the Rey / Kylo story
it wsa the daft seemingly endless chase and trip to the Casino world that threw off the tension for us (6 of us said the same raging in age from teens to mid forties) - cut those pointless and frankly tedious sequences and it woulld have been an average action flick.
Ugh. The more I think about it the more annoyed about it I get. I really have no idea where they're going with this, but I wonder if Solo ends up being a trainwreck (which I can't imagine it being anything else) if they'll try to please more people. I can't say that I think they have a specific direction for this trilogy since the tone of TFA and TLJ are so different and characters seem to behave totally differently.
bbb wrote: Ugh. The more I think about it the more annoyed about it I get. I really have no idea where they're going with this, but I wonder if Solo ends up being a trainwreck (which I can't imagine it being anything else) if they'll try to please more people. I can't say that I think they have a specific direction for this trilogy since the tone of TFA and TLJ are so different and characters seem to behave totally differently.
Finn is pretty constant. He just wants to get laid.
bbb wrote: Ugh. The more I think about it the more annoyed about it I get. I really have no idea where they're going with this, but I wonder if Solo ends up being a trainwreck (which I can't imagine it being anything else) if they'll try to please more people. I can't say that I think they have a specific direction for this trilogy since the tone of TFA and TLJ are so different and characters seem to behave totally differently.
Finn is pretty constant. He just wants to get laid.
Eh. He mostly just wants to run. Denied that option, he opts for suicide. Denied that option... I guess he'll wait to see what Poe, Rey or Rose tell him to do next.
It's nice that we have strong women in this series, but do the guys have to be so terrible? Finn: coward, Poe: impulsive/mutinous/terrible judgement, Kylo: petulant, Snoke: powerblind, Hux: a boob, Luke: sad sack failure, Chewbacca, wuss who can' bring himself to eat cute birds, Ackbar: loser who can't save himself by using the Force after getting blown into space, Benicio del Toro: looks out only for himself.
bbb wrote: It's nice that we have strong women in this series, but do the guys have to be so terrible? Finn: coward, Poe: impulsive/mutinous/terrible judgement, Kylo: petulant, Snoke: powerblind, Hux: a boob, Luke: sad sack failure, Chewbacca, wuss who can' bring himself to eat cute birds, Ackbar: loser who can't save himself by using the Force after getting blown into space, Benicio del Toro: looks out only for himself.
TBF, Finn is portrayed as having overcome his fear in TFA. His problem in TLJ is not cowardice; it's (forced) stupidity. Rose Tico exists to undermine him at every turn.
Finn: I will go save my friend Rey. Rose: No idiot, I can see you're just trying to escape.
Finn: What a cool planet. Rose: No idiot, this is all exploitation. Occupy Wall Street!
Finn: I will sacrifice my life for my friends. Rose: No idiot, I will crash into you, risking both our lives, because love or whatever.
I feel really bad for Finn/John Boyega.
Admiral Whoever serves the same role for Poe Dameron.
You know, that poll seems to reflect what I was thinking: The newer star war movies are probably better if you completely forget about the original 3, which probably is why younger people like it but older ones don't.
I mean.......they're decent movies, but the fact that they are more or less plagiarizing the original 3 is my biggest issue by far. TFA was almost a shoot-for-shoot remake of a new hope, and TFA isn't quite as bad, but is still very similar to empire strikes back in a LOT of ways. And if the next one has anything to do with an 'unfinished super weapon', I'm going to not watch it.
Hell, despite all their flaws, the prequel trilogy at least had an original story to tell, and this generation's trilogy doesn't.
And perhaps younger people have less familiarity with the originals, and consequently like the new ones better.
Kap'n Krump wrote: You know, that poll seems to reflect what I was thinking: The newer star war movies are probably better if you completely forget about the original 3, which probably is why younger people like it but older ones don't.
Right now 45 and younger is 106 like to 92 dislike which is hardly a significant margin of difference. There's no evidence in this poll to suggest age has any bearing on whether or not you'll like the film.
Kap'n Krump wrote: You know, that poll seems to reflect what I was thinking: The newer star war movies are probably better if you completely forget about the original 3, which probably is why younger people like it but older ones don't.
Right now 45 and younger is 106 like to 92 dislike which is hardly a significant margin of difference. There's no evidence in this poll to suggest age has any bearing on whether or not you'll like the film.
I think that it would be interesting to see a poll by "Hardcoreness" of Star Wars fandom, and see how that varies, but I don't think that we need a 3rd thread on this movie.
Kap'n Krump wrote: You know, that poll seems to reflect what I was thinking: The newer star war movies are probably better if you completely forget about the original 3, which probably is why younger people like it but older ones don't.
Right now 45 and younger is 106 like to 92 dislike which is hardly a significant margin of difference. There's no evidence in this poll to suggest age has any bearing on whether or not you'll like the film.
I think that it would be interesting to see a poll by "Hardcoreness" of Star Wars fandom, and see how that varies, but I don't think that we need a 3rd thread on this movie.
Any poll that requires that sort of, ugh. What's the word? Self description? Self choice? I think people will know what I mean. If it requires you to claim a certain level it will be inherently flawed. I think you can only accurately assess age now without offending someone.
Kap'n Krump wrote: You know, that poll seems to reflect what I was thinking: The newer star war movies are probably better if you completely forget about the original 3, which probably is why younger people like it but older ones don't.
Right now 45 and younger is 106 like to 92 dislike which is hardly a significant margin of difference. There's no evidence in this poll to suggest age has any bearing on whether or not you'll like the film.
I think that it would be interesting to see a poll by "Hardcoreness" of Star Wars fandom, and see how that varies, but I don't think that we need a 3rd thread on this movie.
Any poll that requires that sort of, ugh. What's the word? Self description? Self choice? I think people will know what I mean. If it requires you to claim a certain level it will be inherently flawed. I think you can only accurately assess age now without offending someone.
Part of the reason I wanted to see what Dakka thought was because as war gamers we are a more self-selecting group. We are the people who loved SW when there were only 3 movies and the visuals inspired us to want to do stuff like that in the real world...on a tabletop.
In the past, I consumed as much Star Wars beyond the films as I possibly could. Comics, books, toys, fanfic... Oh, and many games.
I dunno, I have just moved on past rabid fandom. I don’t really care all that much. I went in expecting to see an entertaining film and I was not disappointed. Could it have been better? Sure, that goes for just about anything in life. But it wasn’t. It is what it is, and until Star Wars gets the Spider Man treatment, it will only ever be what it is, and not what we want it to be.
Relaunched in a way that people who disliked earlier iterations think that EVERYONE wanted it. I personally loved the Garfield Spidey movies, with the exception of Electro. Harry was annoying but not terrible. Electro was absolute gak. Garfield had the entirety of Peter Parker and Spider-Man nailed. Tom Holland is close, but just not good enough. Garfield was basically ripped straight from the comic pages.
Personal rant over, reiterating point: Spider-Man Treatment = reboot.
Hell, despite all their flaws, the prequel trilogy at least had an original story to tell, and this generation's trilogy doesn't.
Yeah, the PTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe was a really nice change of pace from the OTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe...
Hell, despite all their flaws, the prequel trilogy at least had an original story to tell, and this generation's trilogy doesn't.
Yeah, the PTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe was a really nice change of pace from the OTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe...
While this trilogy's about the story of a young girl from not-tantooine trying to find her place in the universe.
Hell, despite all their flaws, the prequel trilogy at least had an original story to tell, and this generation's trilogy doesn't.
Yeah, the PTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe was a really nice change of pace from the OTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe...
While this trilogy's about the story of a young girl from not-tantooine trying to find her place in the universe.
How so? She literally gets carried off by events in TFA, then in this one eventually settles on her role as redeemer of all things musclely and emo. When that fails, she gets the Lightside Hero tag. We're told explicitly by the director's mouthpieces that her place in the universe doesn't matter.
So with over 250 responses to the poll so far we have 50% liked it, 13% are conflicted, and 37% did not like it.
This somewhat matches up to what Rotten Tomatoes shows, but I was confused why IMDB shows it with a 7.6 out of 10. IMDB gives a nice breakdown about how all the user votes fall so I was able to compare it against the other Star Wars movies. Doing that it ends up being one of the worst rated Star Wars movies by users on the site.
Given how polarizing this movie's been so far after I saw it I felt like this was a more appropriate poster for the film.
As far as the box office goes, globally so far after about a month after being released TLJ as made about $800 million less than TFA. While, yes, that's still wildly profitable, the drop from one movie to the next is quite sharp. Did TFA benefit from years of pent up SW anticipation? Probably, but it seems like TLJ squandered an opportunity to keep that train rolling. While there are tons of people in both the love and hate camps, it seems like people have voted with their wallets in a noticeable way. TFA kept raking in money for months after release, but TLJ has slowed in comparison, so I don't expect the numbers to rise too much more.
That's a breakdown of the countries with a $10 million or more different so far in box office take. Sure there's more time for it to make money, but the rate of ticket sales is slowing rapidly.
As far as the box office goes, globally so far after about a month after being released TLJ as made about $800 million less than TFA. While, yes, that's still wildly profitable, the drop from one movie to the next is quite sharp. Did TFA benefit from years of pent up SW anticipation? Probably, but it seems like TLJ squandered an opportunity to keep that train rolling. While there are tons of people in both the love and hate camps, it seems like people have voted with their wallets in a noticeable way. TFA kept raking in money for months after release, but TLJ has slowed in comparison, so I don't expect the numbers to rise too much more.
That's a breakdown of the countries with a $10 million or more different so far in box office take. Sure there's more time for it to make money, but the rate of ticket sales is slowing rapidly.
Before we get too excited about the figures, bear in mind that TFA figures account for reruns, including those theaters that showed TFA right before the midnight release of TLJ. It's not an equal comparison.
As far as the box office goes, globally so far after about a month after being released TLJ as made about $800 million less than TFA. While, yes, that's still wildly profitable, the drop from one movie to the next is quite sharp. Did TFA benefit from years of pent up SW anticipation? Probably, but it seems like TLJ squandered an opportunity to keep that train rolling. While there are tons of people in both the love and hate camps, it seems like people have voted with their wallets in a noticeable way. TFA kept raking in money for months after release, but TLJ has slowed in comparison, so I don't expect the numbers to rise too much more.
That's a breakdown of the countries with a $10 million or more different so far in box office take. Sure there's more time for it to make money, but the rate of ticket sales is slowing rapidly.
Before we get too excited about the figures, bear in mind that TFA figures account for reruns, including those theaters that showed TFA right before the midnight release of TLJ. It's not an equal comparison.
No. If you just check the numbers for TFA you can see the totals in that page match exactly the foreign results as of 20/7/2016, so about 7 months worth of earnings and definitely not including any reruns prior to TLJ.
I don't think TLJ can make up the additional 67% it needs to get anywhere near TFA on foreign sales (especially if you look at the weekly distributions).
Hell, despite all their flaws, the prequel trilogy at least had an original story to tell, and this generation's trilogy doesn't.
Yeah, the PTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe was a really nice change of pace from the OTs story of a young boy from Tatooine trying to find his place in the universe...
Look, I have a laundry list of problems with the prequels, but this is disingenuous. Not only the stories go in a completely different directions, they have a different scopes (downfall vs journey). Young Anakin is taken more than called (this BTW contributes into the Jedi looking like not clearly good guys). Also, the guy was not "looking for his place". He knew (from his point of view) that he wanted to be a master, he just felt denied, thus unjustly treated. Gods (the four of them), I am finding more nuances and motivations in the prequels than in Mouse Wars. This is the level we are at right now.
I didn't mind the overall idea behind the prequels and if nothing else they don't ape the OT like the mouse trilogy does. They just hinge on some really annoying characters with badly written and executed lines and a weak arc for Anakin.
Yeah, so far the prequel had a stronger story than the current trilogy does. Something might change with the next movie, but as of right now, most of the characters feel like throwaways.
It's interesting that the poll shows overall people like the movie, though its a slim majority, but the comments, like the other TLF thread, are overwhelmingly negative. I guess like a lot of things its the unhappy customer who feels the need to vent.
bbb wrote: As far as the box office goes, globally so far after about a month after being released TLJ as made about $800 million less than TFA. While, yes, that's still wildly profitable, the drop from one movie to the next is quite sharp. Did TFA benefit from years of pent up SW anticipation? Probably, but it seems like TLJ squandered an opportunity to keep that train rolling. While there are tons of people in both the love and hate camps, it seems like people have voted with their wallets in a noticeable way. TFA kept raking in money for months after release, but TLJ has slowed in comparison, so I don't expect the numbers to rise too much more.
I've seen a few version of this analysis, and I'm not sure it tells the whole story. Because while TLJ is the next part of the continuity after TFA, it wasn't the next Disney Star Wars movie. Rogue One followed on from TFA. That doesn't mean BO comparisons from TFA to TLJ are wrong, but it should be noted the story isn't that simple.
Especially because we aren't seeing either a steady drop through each film, or TFA and R1 holding similar, and then dropping to TLJ. Instead what we see is TFA making $2.07bn worldwide, then Rogue One grossing $1.06bn worldwide, then TLJ increasing back up to TLJ grossing $1.30bn worldwide.
That gives a much murkier result than a simple 'audiences voting with their feet' story. Exactly what explains the result would be a lot of guesswork, all of which will be made to look silly when the Han Solo and conclusion to the TFA trilogy come out and we see how those films perform. If the young Han Solo movie does great and the last TFA has a lower take, then it's probable that a lot of the box office is simply fondness for the old characters (with TLF making money just by having Luke return). If the young Han movie doesn't do great, then maybe the issue is audiences aren't that interested in yet more prequels.
We'll find out over the next couple of years.
Oh, and if you want to use the drop off from the original as some kind of guide of quality, not that ESB dropped 32% at the BO compared to Star Wars, that is only slightly more than TLJ's drop off. I don't think anyone would want to claim that proves audiences were reacting against ESB.
sebster wrote: It's interesting that the poll shows overall people like the movie, though its a slim majority, but the comments, like the other TLF thread, are overwhelmingly negative. I guess like a lot of things its the unhappy customer who feels the need to vent.
Currently 50% like it, 13% are conflicted and 37% didn't like it. For one of the most (if not most) beloved movie franchises of all time this indicates an extremely divisive movie.
bbb wrote: As far as the box office goes, globally so far after about a month after being released TLJ as made about $800 million less than TFA. While, yes, that's still wildly profitable, the drop from one movie to the next is quite sharp. Did TFA benefit from years of pent up SW anticipation? Probably, but it seems like TLJ squandered an opportunity to keep that train rolling. While there are tons of people in both the love and hate camps, it seems like people have voted with their wallets in a noticeable way. TFA kept raking in money for months after release, but TLJ has slowed in comparison, so I don't expect the numbers to rise too much more.
I've seen a few version of this analysis, and I'm not sure it tells the whole story. Because while TLJ is the next part of the continuity after TFA, it wasn't the next Disney Star Wars movie. Rogue One followed on from TFA. That doesn't mean BO comparisons from TFA to TLJ are wrong, but it should be noted the story isn't that simple.
Especially because we aren't seeing either a steady drop through each film, or TFA and R1 holding similar, and then dropping to TLJ. Instead what we see is TFA making $2.07bn worldwide, then Rogue One grossing $1.06bn worldwide, then TLJ increasing back up to TLJ grossing $1.30bn worldwide.
That gives a much murkier result than a simple 'audiences voting with their feet' story. Exactly what explains the result would be a lot of guesswork, all of which will be made to look silly when the Han Solo and conclusion to the TFA trilogy come out and we see how those films perform. If the young Han Solo movie does great and the last TFA has a lower take, then it's probable that a lot of the box office is simply fondness for the old characters (with TLF making money just by having Luke return). If the young Han movie doesn't do great, then maybe the issue is audiences aren't that interested in yet more prequels.
We'll find out over the next couple of years.
Oh, and if you want to use the drop off from the original as some kind of guide of quality, not that ESB dropped 32% at the BO compared to Star Wars, that is only slightly more than TLJ's drop off. I don't think anyone would want to claim that proves audiences were reacting against ESB.
The ANH to ESB drop off isn't the best comparison because the way movies were watched in the late 70s and early 80s is different to now and Star Wars went from being an unknown thing that captured the hearts and minds of a generation to a known quantity, so ANH was in theaters for a long time compared to ESB.
Source: Box Office Mojo. This is domestic USA plus international - the total gross. Someone better skilled than me could adjust if for inflation I guess.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014): $773,328,629 Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (2017): $863,746,089
Batman begins (2005): $374,218,673 Dark knight (2008): $1,004,558,444 Dark knight returns (2012): $1,084,939,099
Avengers (2012): $1,518,812,988 Avengers, Ultron (2015) $1,405,403,694 (considered a bit of a disappointment)
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014): $747,862,775 X-Men: Apocalypse (2016): $543,934,787 (box office considered not that great)
Thor (2011): $449,326,618 Thor: Dark World (2013): $644,571,402 Thor: Ragnarok (2017): $851,641,959
Transformers (2007): $709,709,780 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009): $836,303,693 Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): $1,123,794,079 Transformers: Age of Extiction (2013): $1,104,054,072 Transformers: Last Knight (2017): $605,425,157 (considered underperforming)
Man of Steel (2013): $668,045,518 Batman vs Superman (2016): $873,634,919 Wonder Woman (2017): $821,847,012 Justice League (2017): $655,302,179 (considered a major disappointment)
SW Fanfiction: The Force Awakens (2015): $2,068,223,624 SW Fanfiction: The Last Jedi (2017): $1,296,450,164, plus record week-to-week drop. Media: OMG YESSS MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! YAHOOOOO! You're all clear, kid. Now let's blow this thing and go home!
Of course when almost every critic (for whatever reason) says that the film is a cinematic gem before it opens also might have something to do with it.
Personally I regretted the time and money I wasted on going to see the film myself and I don't take any notice of what Film Critics spew out.
sebster wrote: It's interesting that the poll shows overall people like the movie, though its a slim majority, but the comments, like the other TLF thread, are overwhelmingly negative. I guess like a lot of things its the unhappy customer who feels the need to vent.
Currently 50% like it, 13% are conflicted and 37% didn't like it. For one of the most (if not most) beloved movie franchises of all time this indicates an extremely divisive movie.
Agreed.
For additional anecdotal context, I have been absolutely savaging the movie in it's thread but responded to this poll with 'conflicted'. Had I responded to this poll in the first 48 hours after seeing the movie I'd have said i liked it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Heck,
I could name several posters who 'enjoyed' it but felt it had deep shortcomings and/or admitted to giving it the benefit of the doubt until the trilogy ends.
sebster wrote: It's interesting that the poll shows overall people like the movie, though its a slim majority, but the comments, like the other TLF thread, are overwhelmingly negative. I guess like a lot of things its the unhappy customer who feels the need to vent.
As someone who strongly dislikes the film, I agree that this is a completely fair statement. Particularly when you add in emotional investment.
There is an old saying along the lines of: "A person has a good meal at a restaurant, they might tell 2 people. A person has a bad meal, they'll tell 10."
Addendum: first 10 days of B.O. for the Mouse Wars movies.
Spoiler:
We see that before the drop, TLJ was headed close to TFA. Then diverges losing "difference quotient", so to say. In particular, notice what happens in Day 3. Closer to the spin-off Rogue One. with way less leverage, unknown characters and actors, mostly.
Now you have to convince me that the people involved do not keep track of such data, and do not think about the potential revenue lost. I'll wait.
May have God mercy of my sinful soul for using Buzzfeed as a reference, but this one is exactly like many other graphs I found on the subject.
The people who have decided to ignore film critics, do you think the critics are wrong about all films, or only the latest Star Wars, or a select number of films (e.g. Dumb and Dumberer, Darkest Hour, Blade Runner, and so on.) ??
Supplementary question: Why do you think the critics are getting it wrong?
Kilkrazy wrote: The people who have decided to ignore film critics, do you think the critics are wrong about all films, or only the latest Star Wars, or a select number of films (e.g. Dumb and Dumberer, Darkest Hour, Blade Runner, and so on.) ??
Supplementary question: Why do you think the critics are getting it wrong?
The same reason game critics get it wrong. Critics are not consumers. Consumers have a limited amount of money and time. They want to see and play things that they ENJOY regardless of "quality". There is also the fact most critics are of a certain political persuasion, one that TLJ panders to unceasingly.
TLJ is an unenjoyable, preachy movie, when all we want is some fun, drama or grit.
Kilkrazy wrote: The people who have decided to ignore film critics, do you think the critics are wrong about all films, or only the latest Star Wars, or a select number of films (e.g. Dumb and Dumberer, Darkest Hour, Blade Runner, and so on.) ??
Supplementary question: Why do you think the critics are getting it wrong?
I think that the criticism for the movie could be divided in 2 types (absolutely not exclusive one of the other): - criticism of TLJ as a SW movie - criticism of TLJ as a movie, fullstop
The first thing, I am sure, bothers a lower amount of critics, and for sure not the top-tier ones. Nonetheless, TLJ is a movie with huge tonal dissonances, small continuity errors, dubious use of the timeline, nonsensical plot and characters, contrivances, subversion for the sake of subversion, shoehorned and clumsy (and self-contradictory) political messages,and is even schizophrenic about its own ethics. It looks to me like a very cynical movie, written by people with a lot of signalling but not much true moral compass that, like TFA but nonetheless way more than that, is more a movie about star wars than a SW movie. Is cynical, when is supposed to be a family movie.
In the context of the saga, and even of TFA alone, is an awful movie (excluded some scene, generally containing a lot of red, for aesthetic reasons). But even as the first SW movie one watches, is terrible.
In another thread I pointed out how The Mouse takes revenge of those that displease Him removing the critic from the previews. Add to this that if the movie becomes popular, none of them wants to be the unpopular guy/gal that bashed it. In all honesty I cannot see most critics being honest about the movie unless they appreciated it as a meta-commentary. That is interesting, but butchers its purpose of a family movie. Finally, as others pointed out, to me it looks that for many current critics is more important checking shallowly boxes than analyzing context and narrative. It reminds me, on the opposite end of the spectrum, all the screeching following Blade Runner 2049. A movie about disposable workforce, literal objectification on many level, control of female reproductive power, hated by those unable to read through the lines or slammed as "sexist" because some bosom is shown.
For what concerns me, my trust in critics has been very low for a long time, and this movie just set it even lower. They just reported moments and meaning that are not there. Even critics that I consider highly - just looks like they watched a whole different movie.
Re: critics, I don't care about them one way or another. Good for them and their profession when they have opinions. I begrudge them nothing.
I do have a problem with people using critics as a cudgel to tell me my opinions are wrong and consider opening up that line of questioning an admittance that the people on the opposite side of the fence are out of opinions of their own and are "tapping out" so to speak.
I agree with some of Kaiyanwang thoughts but I also think there's a bit of a problem with critics nowadays when it comes to media.
Maybe it isn't a 'nowadays' actually - "Everyone is a critic" is a phrase that's as old as dirt, after all.
In any case, I think there's a problem of not really knowing what critics are there for and while I don't think there's a giant conspiracy to screw over Warner and artifically inflate Disney properties, like, no doubt, someone will claim during the course of this thread (or, someone putting words in my mouth claiming I think that), I think there is a lot of industry around the whole thing.
In any case, there problem is a question there about, "what is a critic?" and "what is a review?"
Is their job to judge the worthiness of a film and it's impact on some sort of greater cultural zeitgeist or what have you. - Or in terms I understand, "do the thing an art critic does."
Or are they essentially another form of film advertisement, that tells you about the film. - In other words, an extension of a Graeme Norton / Jonathan Ross style interview.
Or are they a neutral party that talks about the film and tries to give the reader a bit of an insight into the things the viewer might like about the film, or might not like. - In other words, "is this the type of film I should pay the ticket price, parking, a meal, overpriced popcorn AND hire a babysitter to go see."
I think there's all sorts of overlap between these and others, as well as differing expectations right now that's causing problems.
bbb wrote: Currently 50% like it, 13% are conflicted and 37% didn't like it. For one of the most (if not most) beloved movie franchises of all time this indicates an extremely divisive movie.
I'm not saying its a good result for the movie. 50% liking it is a bad result for any movie, especially one that's supposed to be a safe blockbuster.
I was just saying the difference between the poll and the thread is due to the old cliche, that you can serve 1,000 hamburgers and the only feedback you'll get is from the one guy who didn't like it. It's something worth keeping in mind as people read the thread, which can give the impression that a majority of people didn't like the movie.
The ANH to ESB drop off isn't the best comparison because the way movies were watched in the late 70s and early 80s is different to now and Star Wars went from being an unknown thing that captured the hearts and minds of a generation to a known quantity, so ANH was in theaters for a long time compared to ESB.
You're talking in circles. You can't claim ESB only didn't make as much money because it wasn't in theatres as long. But the reason fro the shorter theatre run was because it wasn't selling as many tickets.
Plain reality is that ESB dropped well back from ANH. It still made stupid amounts of money, of course, and making less money doesn't mean it wasn't a great movie. But it does shed some light on any argument that tries to use BO reductions to claim a trilogy is weak, or losing interest or anything like that.
Kilkrazy wrote: The people who have decided to ignore film critics, do you think the critics are wrong about all films, or only the latest Star Wars, or a select number of films (e.g. Dumb and Dumberer, Darkest Hour, Blade Runner, and so on.) ??
Supplementary question: Why do you think the critics are getting it wrong?
I have no interest in their opinions, they do not know me or the films I would like or not, and they are no more neutral than anyone else is about an art form plus Critics are paid to watch films they don't like and that often shows.
Therefore they are completely worthless to me. I occasionally I will ask what friends thought but again they often don't like what I like and vice versa. I would contend that a film is personal experience and having someone tell me how or if I should enjoy something is laughable.
Given the overwhelming positive response which is completely at odds to the extremely mixed views of those not paid to watch it, I would suggest that at least some of them want to get/keep on the right side of Disney and/or have been pressured
I was just saying the difference between the poll and the thread is due to the old cliche, that you can serve 1,000 hamburgers and the only feedback you'll get is from the one guy who didn't like it. It's something worth keeping in mind as people read the thread, which can give the impression that a majority of people didn't like the movie.
This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX. Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.
You're talking in circles. You can't claim ESB only didn't make as much money because it wasn't in theatres as long. But the reason fro the shorter theatre run was because it wasn't selling as many tickets.
Plain reality is that ESB dropped well back from ANH. It still made stupid amounts of money, of course, and making less money doesn't mean it wasn't a great movie. But it does shed some light on any argument that tries to use BO reductions to claim a trilogy is weak, or losing interest or anything like that.
No, it was just another situation, for ANH additional reruns that happened later are calculated and taken into account. Anyway, I posted performances and sequel drops of many recent blockbusters. Is undeniable TFA is a winner, but is as much as undeniable that TLJ is an enormous drop from the first movie. In the modern blockbuster context, so far is victorious but the future could not be as much as victorious.
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.
Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak.
If Episode IX fails to deliver then the same will happen to this trilogy. After all the heat dies down it'll just get forgotten. On the other hand if Episode IX delivers, then we'll still get the arguments, but in time the trilogy will retain its cache of fans who'll still watch it regularly.
No, it was just another situation, for ANH additional reruns that happened later are calculated and taken into account.
Yes, it had reruns... because the film was so popular that later reruns were also profitable. Had such reruns been then ESB would have had them as well.
This is bonkers. "Oh sure, it made loads more money, but that's only because lots of people went to see it over a long period of time".
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.
Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak..
I remember glowing reviews for the Phantom Menace in film magazines when it came out - one of the many reasons I learned to distrust Film Critics.
Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak.
Ok Sebster, first and foremost, watch out your dismissing tone or we start all over again. We don't want that, right?
Their crappiness was clear to some for the first time, but not to everybody. People still went for Ep II after TPM, bought DVD and re-watch, or watch for the first time the prequels, especially if they have kids. Still, yes. One wants to kill himself when Jar Jar is on screen, screams internally at the "love" scenes, and enjoys Ian McDiarmid if forgets that the plot works only if everyone involved is drugged up and stupid. I dare to say that I cared more for Order 66 than for anything the new sequels. Meh. The "respected" or at least influential Roger Ebert gave to TPM 3.5/4 stars. RotS got way better reception. Is really not that black and white. For sure, there was less media circus involving the director defending every single choice on twitter or in interview, and the dislikers were not called mysoginist or nazi or russian hackers. I perhaps have to conclude that people paid more attention to which kind of idiot would express his thoughts in public? The true "elaborated" and popularised disliking arrived partially with the fantastic and NSFW Plinkett reviews from Red Letter Media. They said nothing other did not say but for sure arrived in the right time. And partially because we generally need time to elaborate phenomena, especially if there is emotional investment.
If Episode IX fails to deliver then the same will happen to this trilogy. After all the heat dies down it'll just get forgotten. On the other hand if Episode IX delivers, then we'll still get the arguments, but in time the trilogy will retain its cache of fans who'll still watch it regularly.
TFA and TLJ have better acting and direction of the prequels, but they are not less stupid. And are way more cynical, "ironic", more about SW than SW movies. When the dust will settle, the dishonesty of these movies will surface.... maybe. Ep IX is no longer relevant because the authors did not plan anything about that. They don't care. These movies are there to deconstruct SW. Are meta-movies that have the purpose of destroying what is there, and transform it in components easier to market. With an enormous contempt for the audience, the audience that wants the "twists" in the tv series, that watches movies "ironically" because lol I am a geek but these are kid movies amrite? (TLJ teaches that nothing matters, you are entitled to things without training or demonstrating you have the right skills, and you should follow orders without discussion. also, hint of romance/connection with a dark triad guy that murdered his father - great for a kid movie indeed). A justified contempt, I'd say. Red Letter Media commented recently about the fandom. The title is misleading.
Spoiler:
Yes, it had reruns... because the film was so popular that later reruns were also profitable. Had such reruns been then ESB would have had them as well. This is bonkers. "Oh sure, it made loads more money, but that's only because lots of people went to see it over a long period of time".
The point is that you are comparing 2 different situations, like people already pointed out and you conveniently ignored. Reruns were more diluted in time, it was a different phenomenon. Cinemas worked differently. I gave examples of what blockbusters do now, and you did not address anything of that. TFA grossed all that much in a timespan comparable to the other movies I linked. TLJ started great because of the (unexplainable for me) success of TFA, then dropped. In the current context, if you look at the blockbusters I have shown and what was considered a disappointment, the sequel movie is supposed to gross more. THIS is the context TLJ must be compared to because is the way movies nowadays work, at least these popcorn ones.
TLJ started great because of the (unexplainable for me) success of TFA, then dropped. In the current context, if you look at the blockbusters I have shown and what was considered a disappointment, the sequel movie is supposed to gross more. THIS is the context TLJ must be compared to because is the way movies nowadays work, at least these popcorn ones.
TFA did well, because it (unlike TLJ) covered up its inadequacy's with a massive amount of Nostagia, and scattered hints of there being some potential. It gave off the impression that the writers were signalling that, "Okay, we know how to make a Star Wars Movie. Here are some new characters, welcome to the setting, next movie will tell it's own story". TLJ decides to do away with the nostalgia, and so all of the flaws inherent to the sequel trilogy were made apparent.
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.
Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak..
I remember glowing reviews for the Phantom Menace in film magazines when it came out - one of the many reasons I learned to distrust Film Critics.
I remember some crap reviews.
I think we can all agree, that we can dislike or like things due to personal reasons, and we don't have to project those reasons and use them to claim that the things we dislike are objectively bad.
For example, I dislike Greek food. At the same time, I can recognise that millions of people love it (not even just the Greeks!) I can read a professional restaurant critic's piece on a Greek restaurant and understand intellectually that it contains objective truths (such as that the salad was fresh, the dressing was well made, etc) even though I still don't like the taste of Greek salad, and I won't go and eat there.
I can flip that and read the review of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, and understand that objectively it is a bad movie with a stupid plot, cliched dialogue and rotten special effects, but I can still like it myself.
1. I dispute that many "professional" critics are objective and usually their own specific taste and ingrained prejudices shine through.
2. Its art - therefore subjective.
3. Paid critics certainly hold different films to different standards and are seldom consistent.
The assertion by the previous poster was that both the critical and consumer reception to the Prequel films was negative "The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible." I recall vividly glowing reviews from paid critics in film magazine at the time - later some of them backtracked in the DVD reviews.
Conflicted. I went into all of the new SW movies really wanting to like them, and I did enjoy watching all three, but they all left a sour taste in their own way, especially TLJ.
I prefer the prequels by far, for all their flaws. The sequels have been visually stunning but stink of fan fiction
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.
Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak.
If Episode IX fails to deliver then the same will happen to this trilogy. After all the heat dies down it'll just get forgotten. On the other hand if Episode IX delivers, then we'll still get the arguments, but in time the trilogy will retain its cache of fans who'll still watch it regularly.
Another interesting bit between the pre's and ep 8, when people said TPM was horrible they never got attacked for it, their motives and reasoning were never called into question. Yet now the people who defend the movie are trying to demonize people for not liking it. a weird phenomenon that seems to have started around the time the new ghostbusters came out. You can dislike all the movies you want no questions asked, just not those on the approved SJW viewing list, then you're a bad person for not liking them.
With PR like that I wonder if it will have an effect on ep 9's box office take.
yes these movies are canon, but just look at the people who claim a "best" viewing order, TPM is always left off the lists, or pushed to the end of it, or if there's still time spot. ep 2 suggests skipping to the attack on genosis. if 9 bombs, then the whole triology is easily left off the list, just stop on ep 6 and end the saga with a happy ending.
I think we can all agree, that we can dislike or like things due to personal reasons, and we don't have to project those reasons and use them to claim that the things we dislike are objectively bad.
For example, I dislike Greek food. At the same time, I can recognise that millions of people love it (not even just the Greeks!) I can read a professional restaurant critic's piece on a Greek restaurant and understand intellectually that it contains objective truths (such as that the salad was fresh, the dressing was well made, etc) even though I still don't like the taste of Greek salad, and I won't go and eat there.
I can flip that and read the review of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, and understand that objectively it is a bad movie with a stupid plot, cliched dialogue and rotten special effects, but I can still like it myself.
I think that the one can appreciate bad movies (I surely do, I have a sweet spot for many B-movies - some should qualify as a C movie - from the 60s-80s).
But I think we should pay attention to subjectivity. One can like or not a certain dish, but we can be less objective on how that dish is prepared. I love very rare steak, some don't. But I guess that everyone can cut a steak and tell if is rare or not.
There could be a discussion to tell if is extra rare or rare, but not if is extra rare or well done.
One can like a movie that is a complete mess. What makes me wonder is the fact that I see many online defenders on blogs etc that just deny that the steak is well done, and tell me is rare.
One last observation about critics, that should be done. I think Gordon pointed it out somewhere... they are not all the same. We can read 2 articles online and think 2 different people have the same authority or background about movies but it's not necessarily true.
A good or even half decent critic can explain why they subjectively do or don't like a movie while still analysing critically and objectively.
That said I don't really read what movie critics have to say anyway. Before I've seen a movie I don't really want to live through the movie vicariously through a reviewer, IMO it almost never enhances a movie watching experience for me and far too often reduces it. Then after I've seen a movie I usually don't care what they have to say about it anyway.
I care more about critics when it comes to things like video games which are a greater monetary and significantly greater time investment.
BaconCatBug wrote: TLJ is an unenjoyable, preachy movie, when all we want is some fun, drama or grit.
That's very well said.
I think everyone would prefer if SW films were "good" - in the sense of being fun rather than antagonistic.
Regarding critics, I think that profession is hopelessly compromised. First, it's not as if there is a Critics Guild that certifies qualification and upholds ethical standards. Second, and relatedly, criticism and marketing are no longer distinct concepts - maybe they never were but it's more blurry now than ever before. Thirdly, consumer content creators ("influencers") have been co-opted as "critics" specifically because they are as susceptible to marketing as their own audiences.
The late, great Roger Ebert's reviews are still on line, and make excellent reading. Interestingly, Ebert liked Star Wars and The Phantom Menace. It's a pity we can't know what he would have thought about The Last Jedi.
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.
Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak.
If Episode IX fails to deliver then the same will happen to this trilogy. After all the heat dies down it'll just get forgotten. On the other hand if Episode IX delivers, then we'll still get the arguments, but in time the trilogy will retain its cache of fans who'll still watch it regularly.
Another interesting bit between the pre's and ep 8, when people said TPM was horrible they never got attacked for it, their motives and reasoning were never called into question. Yet now the people who defend the movie are trying to demonize people for not liking it. a weird phenomenon that seems to have started around the time the new ghostbusters came out. You can dislike all the movies you want no questions asked, just not those on the approved SJW viewing list, then you're a bad person for not liking them.
With PR like that I wonder if it will have an effect on ep 9's box office take.
yes these movies are canon, but just look at the people who claim a "best" viewing order, TPM is always left off the lists, or pushed to the end of it, or if there's still time spot. ep 2 suggests skipping to the attack on genosis. if 9 bombs, then the whole triology is easily left off the list, just stop on ep 6 and end the saga with a happy ending.
This is not true. In science fiction circles, there were plenty of prequel fans who attacked detractors. Often they would claim that anyone expecting slick dialogue or straightforward motivation from a former slave abducted by a cult or a child forced into political responsibility is a f--let's say they said "fooltoward". There were long articles written defending the prequels, and most of them turned against the criticism in the exact same ways that TLJ fans do, minus the claims of misogyny. People were angry that anyone could be offended by Watto or the Neimoidians or Jar Jar, and the backlash against the people who see racism in those characters is pretty funny considering the TLJ narratives. One guy wrote a hundred pages of commentary attacking Red Letter Media over TPM, and it was shared pretty widely.
The Internet was different back then, with social media less integrated into society at all levels, but the same dynamics were in play.
I'll just say that my memory is, the Prequels were not uniformly loathed upon release. RLM's TPM review was a genuine watershed and I think a lot of folks are retroactively adopting that analysis (from 2009) as their own (back in 1999). My own reaction to the Prequels at the time was to focus on how they thematically integrated, or failed to integrate, with the Original Trilogy ... I wish I could find my actual posts on the official SW forums from back then.
I think sirlynchmob is really on the right track, however, in that Lucasfilm had no marketing counterpunch back in the early 2000s, like Sony and Disney have developed these days, whereby criticisms of their products are recast as hatred and evil.
Kilkrazy mentioned that Roger Ebert liked The Phantom Menace so I looked up that review and re-read it. In a nutshell, Ebert excuses TPM's flat characters, convoluted plot, and puzzling story because, apparently, the point of the film was to be shiny. Star Wars is shiiiiiiny *jangles keys* so don't pay attention to the basic elements of narrative.
Ebert was a softy when it came to the wide-eyed wonderment the movies inspired in him and, he hoped, would inspire in others and I think that's why he took such a ludicrous position on TPM. I don't think anything nearly as warm and cuddly motivates the marketing-driven film criticism, which is often basically nameless, that studios have co-opted to sell their products.
And yet, if we follow Ebert's lead and judge Star Wars movies by how visually novel they can be, do these Disney movies actually rate or do they still disappoint? I'd say the latter. But Ebert apparently found TPM to be visually wonderful, and castigated those who didn't as basically ungrateful/unmindful. Which completely ignores the fact that movies can and do still visually wow us - I am thinking here of Fury Road and Blade Runner 2049. But also "lower brow" films like Kong: Skull Island and Thor: Ragnarok.
Ebert was a great critic but he was wrong about TPM. His review of Attack of the Clones almost reads like a retraction, in fact. But here we are, nearly twenty (!) years later with "critics" still demanding we like movies because they are (allegedly) shiny, despite grievous flaws in plot, characterization, and theme.
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is absolutely true, but I have one theory: the more time will pass, more people will dislike TLJ unless J.J. pulls a miracle for IX.
Stuff that is tolerated will become unacceptable in retrospect, a bit like with TFA. Also, as someone noted, is a movie that has different layers of problems so one does not realize them all at once. It happened with the prequels for many, too.
Not quite. I think you're missed what happened with the prequels, and its caused you to make an inaccurate prediction about the new films. The prequels at the time were hated, the vitriol those films copped was incredible. Over time the prequels haven't been thought of as worse. I'm kind of amused at your argument that the issues of the prequels only became clear over time - their crappiness was entirely obvious at the time and widely acknowledged. But how the prequels are treated has changed massively - at the time there was great energy, lots of attackers and a handful of defenders arguing endlessly over those movies. Nowaways they've just been largely forgotten. Not literally, of course, they're still part of SW canon, and the experience of such complete disappointment will never stop being part of geek folklore, but as films... these days no-one gives a gak.
If Episode IX fails to deliver then the same will happen to this trilogy. After all the heat dies down it'll just get forgotten. On the other hand if Episode IX delivers, then we'll still get the arguments, but in time the trilogy will retain its cache of fans who'll still watch it regularly.
Another interesting bit between the pre's and ep 8, when people said TPM was horrible they never got attacked for it, their motives and reasoning were never called into question. Yet now the people who defend the movie are trying to demonize people for not liking it. a weird phenomenon that seems to have started around the time the new ghostbusters came out. You can dislike all the movies you want no questions asked, just not those on the approved SJW viewing list, then you're a bad person for not liking them.
With PR like that I wonder if it will have an effect on ep 9's box office take.
yes these movies are canon, but just look at the people who claim a "best" viewing order, TPM is always left off the lists, or pushed to the end of it, or if there's still time spot. ep 2 suggests skipping to the attack on genosis. if 9 bombs, then the whole triology is easily left off the list, just stop on ep 6 and end the saga with a happy ending.
This is not true. In science fiction circles, there were plenty of prequel fans who attacked detractors. Often they would claim that anyone expecting slick dialogue or straightforward motivation from a former slave abducted by a cult or a child forced into political responsibility is a f--let's say they said "fooltoward". There were long articles written defending the prequels, and most of them turned against the criticism in the exact same ways that TLJ fans do, minus the claims of misogyny. People were angry that anyone could be offended by Watto or the Neimoidians or Jar Jar, and the backlash against the people who see racism in those characters is pretty funny considering the TLJ narratives. One guy wrote a hundred pages of commentary attacking Red Letter Media over TPM, and it was shared pretty widely.
The Internet was different back then, with social media less integrated into society at all levels, but the same dynamics were in play.
That's the usual fan vs fan stuff, like the age old question of kirk vs picard to determine if you're a true trekkie, or if you're considered a gamer if you only play facebook games. (those are retorical btw, let's not go down those paths) people went from pondering if those characters were based on racist sterotypes, to being labeled racists for not liking a movie. As you noted though it lacked the claims of misogyny, and a article from George saying how we watched the movie wrong. Which seems to be a growing defense for horrible movies.
Manchu wrote: Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert are greatly missed. No one has filled their shoes.
That brings another idea to mind for me about critics. I loved Ebert's reviews not so much for his personal opinion of a movie, but for 1) his writing-the man was a master of informal prose and 2) his ability to get me to pay attention to an overlooked detail before going in. For example, he told me to pay attention to Million Dollar Baby's lighting because it was interesting in some way, so I would make an effort to pay a bit more attention to that in addition to the plot on a first viewing. His tastes often aligned with mine, so that helped, but his perspective always gave me something to look at from a different angle. At times he got an initial viewing "wrong" and he was willing to go back and reassess. For example, he gave Clockwork Orange a pretty lackluster review initially, but still put it on his "Great Movies" list thirty years later.
Kael...yeah, she could express her personal experience with a film quite well, but for some reason, I just can't stand her. Part of it might have to do with her horrible lack of any sort of consistent or credible standards--see "Raising Kane" for a good example of how not to do research or evaluation.
That was kinda my point earlier (in this thread or the other one) that one should find a critic that one enjoys reading and is comfortable with. Never just look at the "score" or Tomato-meter to judge--those have all sorts of problems (fivethirtyeight.com has some interesting statistical data analysis on that front). Too often I read people just looking at some overall "rating" and making assumptions. Ignore the scores (it's not a game) and read what they say. A lot of reviewers never give actual scores at all (which is a dumb premise as all get out. Yup, Hamlet was definitely a 9.7, whereas Macbeth was only a 9.2), and RT just assigns them.
You have identified two good points about Ebert that may relate to other professional critics too.
1. He was a really good writer.
2. He understood, identified and pointed out, elements of the "craft" of film-making that might easily be lost on a lay audience, such as the quality of lighting, locations, and so on.
Read the review of Lost In Translation, or Spirited Away, to understand something of what a good critic can bring to your appreciation of a film.
It helps me that these both are films I really love, but can't the newcomer to them begin to feel the spirit within?
To get back to Star Wars in general, I suspect that there are some films that will still be celebrated in 100 years -- The Life of O-Haru, Citizen Kane, Withnail and I, perhaps -- and a lot which are hugely popular and influential now, which will not be forgotten, but will no longer be regarded as pinnacles of the film-making art.
IDK where any of the SW episodes lie on this spectrum, but I think it is unlikely that any except episode IV will achieve the A list.
Manchu wrote: Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert are greatly missed. No one has filled their shoes.
Have you read some of Film Crit Hulk's reviews? Someone linked to him in the John Carter thread, and I've found he had a lot to say about films, film criticism, and how the audience approaches films. I don't believe he has posted any reviews recently, but I would love to read his take on TLJ. He is one of those reviewers who excels at explaining what he feels works and doesn't work in a movie and why.
I'm glad that you pointed to those two reviews specifically as they illustrate nicely that film review is an art form in its own right. And that they can, or cannot, be viewed as arbitrators of "good or bad" of what they are discussing. Or they can be viewed as others (Mr. Modron) as just a scheme to get you to pay your money. Read them. What do they say, discus, or inform you about. Nothing? Fine. Go to another. None of them? You haven't been reading closely enough. The best ones were/are poetry about the art form they love.
As to how SW will be assessed 100 yrs from now, it won't be. They aren't now (though TLJ, is getting a lot of attention in film academic circles right now and it feels a bit different ) other than products of a culture. They usually aren't assessed on their merits, unlike Spielberg's works which are going through a bit of a resurgence right now, though I would guess is mostly nostalgic based. I am a bit of an outlier here, but I see Temple of Doom and AI being reassessed quite favorably (AI in the publications already). Temple of Doom will take a bit more of cross pollination to comics in academia. Give it a few years. I wonder how much the academic circles color the general public and critics. In other words did The Red Shoes's discussion of the movie color the public's perception of the movie (I realize most of "the public' hasn't seen it).
In addition to the hyperbole that Manchu pointed out above, I would also steer away from people who are not willing to put their own names on stuff. It's fine if you want to brand something with a name, but put your own name to it as well if you want anybody to respect or cite it. I would actually like all forums to require real names. Gets rid of the crap. Makes Doxieing a thing of the past (in terms of sheer masses), and provides a way to establish credibility. If we are going to go with the "everybody is a celebrity" culture, we better damn well accept it or else everything is just "fake news".
In terms of this discussion it seems like "fake news" that people actually liked the last Star Wars movie.
extremely MEH. a more MEH movie has probably never been made. wont see it again, wont buy the DVD to add to my collection. A disappointment and a smear on the Star Wars franchise IMO.
In addition to the hyperbole that Manchu pointed out above, I would also steer away from people who are not willing to put their own names on stuff. It's fine if you want to brand something with a name, but put your own name to it as well if you want anybody to respect or cite it. I would actually like all forums to require real names. Gets rid of the crap. Makes Doxieing a thing of the past (in terms of sheer masses), and provides a way to establish credibility. If we are going to go with the "everybody is a celebrity" culture, we better damn well accept it or else everything is just "fake news".
In terms of this discussion it seems like "fake news" that people actually liked the last Star Wars movie.
I've been on forums where real names were required and still managed to be caustic and unpleasant places. The only difference was people who gave a crap about their real name didn't post there, but there were plenty others who didn't seem to mind being dicks while using their real name.
I think there's a lot of people who have good things to say but don't want it to be tied to their real name for whatever reason. A lawyer might have good insights on law but might not want to post under their real name. An engineer might have good insights on technical stuff but doesn't want to post under their real name because if they say something slightly incorrect it'll hurt them more than Joe Schmo who has no fething idea what they're talking about in the first place. Or a doctor who might hold certain insights that they can share anonymously but not under their real name.
Dakka at the moment has a lot of people who are experts in various fields who I think would stop posting if they had to have it tied to their real name. Then you're just left with all the idiots who don't care and have no repercussions for anything stupid they say.
EDIT: I actually think for me there's a slight element of respect for people smart enough not to tie their real name to what they say on the internet
I can see that but I would think after a short time of adjustment, most people could get along fine. Most academics have no problem with putting up their views, even non tenured folks. I wouldn't. It might curb some of the stuff I say here, but then some of the stuff I say here probably should be curbed. And upon reflection, isn't something I should have said in the first place The mods would certainly have an easier time of things.
Put it this way, I wouldn't want to take legal, or medical or what have you advice from some anonymous source on the internet. I might get an interesting idea on stuff, but not the sort of idea I would really be comfortable on following up on.
Edit: for me there is a bit of respect given to someone who is willing to tie their name to their statements and still have the wherewithal to not post gak. Or at the least, not to post the first thing that pops into ones' mind.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I can see that but I would think after a short time of adjustment, most people could get along fine. Most academics have no problem with putting up their views, even non tenured folks. I wouldn't. It might curb some of the stuff I say here, but then some of the stuff I say here probably should be curbed. The mods would certainly have an easier time of things.
The smartest academics I know say very little unless behind closed doors with people they know, and I'm sure it's in large part because they don't want to be quoted on stuff if they're slightly wrong.
It's one thing I've had to learn as a research engineer because it didn't come naturally to me; it's better to say nothing at all than say something that'll bite you in the arse later
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Put it this way, I wouldn't want to take legal, or medical or what have you advice from some anonymous source on the internet. I might get an interesting idea on stuff, but not the sort of idea I would really be comfortable on following up on.
Well of course you wouldn't want follow through on any advice obtained from an internet forum.... but I'd still rather it be there than those people simply packing up their bags and leaving because they're too afraid to say anything lest it be tied to their name forever, then we're just left with the idiots who don't mind what is tied to their names
As I said I've been a member of a "real name" forum before and it still had a bunch of uninformed dicks.
Well the world is filled with uniformed dicks. I would rather know their names so I can avoid them. As to saying nothing unless being pretty sure about it, count me in. That would be a pretty good world to live in. I say enough stupid stuff to myself every day, no need for others'. As I see it pretty much all the horrible stuff I see on the internet is tied to people who are willing to say/do things anonymously and all the greatest things about the Internet (most of the knowledge obtained by humanity) has been willingly cited. If one doesn't want to tie their name to it, one probably need not say it. Would your say it to someone's face, in other words.
Well crap I got this off topic. Move it along folks, nothing to see here.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well the world is filled with uniformed dicks. I would rather know their names so I can avoid them.
Well people still have usernames you can identify and ignore
As to saying nothing unless being pretty sure about it, count me in. That would be a pretty good world to live in.
The intelligent people who know the most are the only ones who stop saying stuff though, the dumb ones don't change
If one doesn't want to tie their name to it, one probably need not say it.
I disagree. I'd rather have an off the cuff comment from a knowledgeable person than them saying nothing at all because they don't want their name tied to it. There are many fields I know nothing about, there's others that I don't know 100% but still know better than 98% of the population, anonymity lets me comment on them without fear of it biting me in the arse down the track. Like, I know enough about mechanical engineering to critique and comment on someone's designs anonymously, it's not my own field of expertise but it's close enough to it that I wouldn't comment if it was in writing with my name tied to it (even though I might comment orally if someone asked me, the added factor of being in writing makes it worse, I'll make more off the cuff comments face to face than I would in an email for example).
When things are actually in writing most smart people will refrain from saying anything at all if it could come back to bite them Even things they might say face to face.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well crap I got this off topic. Move it along folks, nothing to see here.
Maybe make a thread in nuts and bolts if you want to continue the discussion?
