Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Togusa wrote:

Seriously name me one character from the Force Awakens to the Rise of Skywalker that you cared about.

I can name two, Poe and Finn. Sadly they were underused, as was their bromance.
I hoped that Phasma would also turn up interesting but she was also wasted. I could list her as a character I cared about because I was anticipating her potential being unlocked. Rian Johnson had other ideas though, though calling what vacuous dogmas run through his head 'ideas' is too generous though.

In honesty though Phasma was disappointing and Poe, while he did have his moments was trying too hard to be Han Solo but didn't have the charisma. That leave me with Finn, frankly they set him up as a very interested character, and he was the first persistent character we get introduced to, and didnt manage to foul that up too much in the three films that followed. Yes I was interested in his story arc and character development.

In hindsight Kylo Ren is the only character other than Finn that shows any character development, and that is mainly a fill in in the last act of Rise of Skywalker, so we have nothing to ride with. Frankly he is the opposite of Finn, who has all his character development in the first act of Force Awakens, at leas we could follow Finn and look for more . I don't include Rey in this despite her evident 'progression' as Mary Sue's finding they can do everything is not character development but an inherent part of the trope. Rey was hollow but Daisy Ridley is not to blame for this.

Just got out from watching this. Haven’t read anything on this thread or any reviews. Still digesting it but how 40k is that emperor on the strings? John Blanche himself could have styled that stuff. Crazy stuff.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Buy the next series of novels and comics to find out!

I'm starting to think this is deliberate. Because otherwise, these are just trash-tier movies without the slightest bit of consistency.

Chekov's gun, Disney. Look into it. Movies shouldn't require a homework assignment.

Unfortunately, Disney has this... certain obsession...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:

Sorry what? Saying John Boyega was only included for "black dude points" is pretty racist, the guy is a great actor, very charismatic and great comic timing. Finn was my favourite character from the first movie, and I cared about what happened to him in each subsequent one (I was disappointed!).

Well, yes, it's racist... but on Disney's part, not ours. Yes, John Boyega is a good actor and could have done SO MUCH MORE with the character... had he been allowed to. The conflict between him and Phasma, his potential Force sensitivity, his background as a defecting stormtrooper... SO much potential for the character. And Disney squandered it ALL.

Unfortunately, the part they gave him was part "Woo Guy!" (seriously, every scene he's shouting 'Woo!' about something), and part token comic relief black guy. And yes, I consider that to be VERY racist of them to do to him. I mean, if that's all they wanted out of Finn, switch Boyega over to play Poe instead.

epronovost wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Yes, I've seen all three films multiple times. Daisy is a gak actress. Sorry but I find the actress and the character to be dull as bricks.

Funny, I thought Daisy gave us the best perfomance in a Star Wars movie since Han Solo which remains the best performance in Star Wars movies so far. I think she did a great job. In fact I would say that if there is one place where the sequel did very well was the acting overall better than the original and prequal though the best performance of the sequel doesn't match the best performances of the original though there is less terrible performance. Only Boyega was a bit off, especially in the first instalment, but I think that's more of a script than a performance issue. As far as lead role is taken, the sequel had a significantly more interesting and well played character than "nothing boy" Luke Skywalker or "angsty man-child" Anakin Skywalker.

Are we all watching a different actress? Never once did I feel any kind of connection with her character. I watched her mary sue her way from one end of the galaxy to the other, with little to no explanation as to how she could do all the things she did. There is no way in heck her performances were anywhere near that of Ford or Tarkin from the original trilogy. She is dull, emotionless with all the facial expressions of a brick. When she "died" in the end of the latest movie, I actually cheered. Too bad it didn't last.

 Da Boss wrote:
You can disagree with the plot that Finn was part of (I do, I think he was misused in TLJ and TROS) but that is not my argument. I am arguing he was not hired for being a black man, but was hired because he is a great actor with a lot of charisma.

And then Disney used him for a role any of the Wayans brothers would have done equally well for. Such a waste....

Lots of the actors from the Prequels and Sequels get too much of a bad wrap for what is a crap script/directing.

Hell, when Natalie Portman previously does a better job as a girl who has a baby in a Walmart (Where the Heart is) than as Padme in freaking STAR WARS it's not her.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Lots of the actors from the Prequels and Sequels get too much of a bad wrap for what is a crap script/directing.

Hell, when Natalie Portman previously does a better job as a girl who has a baby in a Walmart (Where the Heart is) than as Padme in freaking STAR WARS it's not her.

But her hair is softer than sand, M'lady.

“I’ll hold my baby like I did by the lake in Kalamazoo.”

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
“I’ll hold my baby like I did by the lake in Kalamazoo.”

I actually like the Phantom Menace. It's my favorite star wars movie.

But the other two were just awful, aside from a few good scenes.

 Togusa wrote:
There is no way in heck her performances were anywhere near that of Ford or Tarkin from the original trilogy. She is dull, emotionless with all the facial expressions of a brick. When she "died" in the end of the latest movie, I actually cheered. Too bad it didn't last.

I don't think she was better or on par with Ford though she did a better job overall than the guy who played Tarkin (who while certainly better had a lot simpler job to do, his only expression and dialogues was that of a perpetually smug officer). Only Ford had to run through a range of emotions and various scenarios and managed to do a better job than her. She was definitely better than Hamil, of Fisher. The former was actually better in the sequel than the original. I would even say she was better than the guy who played Obi-Wan in the prequel though I might be biased by the fact the dialogue and direction were atrociously terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Lots of the actors from the Prequels and Sequels get too much of a bad wrap for what is a crap script/directing.

Hell, when Natalie Portman previously does a better job as a girl who has a baby in a Walmart (Where the Heart is) than as Padme in freaking STAR WARS it's not her.

Even the best actors with poor direction and script can't do anything. The prequel biggest problem was with the script and the direction. The only unintended effect was to grant us Palpatine the First, Emperor of one liners and ham, the most corny and ridiculous romantic dialogue ever written and Obi-Wan Master of self contradiction.

While the role of Tarkin might have been less strenuous than a main lead, to say that Daisy is on par with Peter Cushing is simply asinine.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While the role of Tarkin might have been less strenuous than a main lead, to say that Daisy is on par with Peter Cushing is simply asinine.

Indeed, but I'm comparing one role against another and I think that if you consider that Tarkin is an easy part compared to Rey and that Tarkin isn't Cushing at his best either (I would say his best was when he played doctor Frakenstein). For those reasons I would give Daisy's performance as better than that of Cushing, but they are closely matched I must admit. I think comparing the career of one of Holywood great actors with that of basically a rookie actress is a bit faulty. In 30-40 years, maybe we can compare Cushing with her and actually see if they match. If we were to compare careers in general, I think it would still go for Ford probably followed by Portman as "best actors in Star Wars".

epronovost wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
There is no way in heck her performances were anywhere near that of Ford or Tarkin from the original trilogy. She is dull, emotionless with all the facial expressions of a brick. When she "died" in the end of the latest movie, I actually cheered. Too bad it didn't last.

I don't think she was better or on par with Ford though she did a better job overall than the guy who played Tarkin (who while certainly better had a lot simpler job to do, his only expression and dialogues was that of a perpetually smug officer). Only Ford had to run through a range of emotions and various scenarios and managed to do a better job than her. She was definitely better than Hamil, of Fisher. The former was actually better in the sequel than the original. I would even say she was better than the guy who played Obi-Wan in the prequel though I might be biased by the fact the dialogue and direction were atrociously terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Lots of the actors from the Prequels and Sequels get too much of a bad wrap for what is a crap script/directing.

Hell, when Natalie Portman previously does a better job as a girl who has a baby in a Walmart (Where the Heart is) than as Padme in freaking STAR WARS it's not her.

Even the best actors with poor direction and script can't do anything. The prequel biggest problem was with the script and the direction. The only unintended effect was to grant us Palpatine the First, Emperor of one liners and ham, the most corny and ridiculous romantic dialogue ever written and Obi-Wan Master of self contradiction.

No. There is no way in hell she was better than Hamil or Fisher. What are you smoking?

 Togusa wrote:

No. There is no way in hell she was better than Hamil or Fisher. What are you smoking?

Well, obviously I think you are the one high on his own farts. Hamil was both underacting and overacting in the same movies while Fisher had the emotionnal range of a stone. Even the destruction of the home world and the death of her entire familly and friends barely phased her. Luke, whome she kissed and might have dated announced to her that she is his sister (and has been tortured by her own father) and she reacts with barely enough surprise to raise an eyebrow. Compare with Ridley who is enraged by Luke's lies to her; in tears at the idea of being without any answers about her passed; seething at the reveal of her ancestry and I am skipping some. I personnaly think she hardcarried the last movie and was a strong point of the Last Jedi.

Yeah I would say Daisy Ridley is better than young Mark Hamil as an actor. Hamil got better with age, and by the Last Jedi is doing a great job, but in the first trilogy it was basically upper tier B movie acting.

Whenever someone complaints about a prequel or sequel actor acting like a whiny teenager, I have PTSD flashbacks to Luke bitching about wanting to go to Toshi Station.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah I would say Daisy Ridley is better than young Mark Hamil as an actor. Hamil got better with age, and by the Last Jedi is doing a great job, but in the first trilogy it was basically upper tier B movie acting.

Hamil is actually a lot better playing villains than playing heroes too. His work as a voice actor is excellent and mostly on villains like the Joker or the Fire Lord in the Last Airbender. A also saw him in a few indy movies playing a mobster and a crooked art collector and he was chilling in both.

Actually, that’s the voice I imagine internet posters speaking in when they complain about Rey and Daisy Ridley.

Finally got around to seeing it and have got to say I didnt enjoy the movie at all. And Im not even a diehard fan.

Finally saw Rise of Skywalker. It was stupid, but not terrible. I didn't hate it.

As far as the sequel trilogy goes, I dont feel like I ever need to watch it again. This whole thing will go down as an epic failure of brand management.

Since the Special Editions were released in the late 90s I've seen the last 10 Star Wars movies at either midnight screenings or at least opening weekend. Now after more than two weeks since it was released I finally got around to see it, but felt no excitement or anticipation leading up to it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While the role of Tarkin might have been less strenuous than a main lead, to say that Daisy is on par with Peter Cushing is simply asinine.

Any particular reason why? Not defending any other actors or attacking Cushing, but literally the only roles I've seen him in have him standing, reciting the script in a distinctly British way that's probably his natural accent and cadence. (Which seemed to be true since he talked in the same fashion in the 'history (defense?) of wargaming' video I saw him in).

Certainly nothing that proves acting chops.

Indeed.

Nothing says ‘no good at his profession’ like a near 50 year career. Starting in 1939, with his final role in 1986.

Yep. Only the truly rubbish can stick in any career for that length of time,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For further watching, I recommend ‘Dr Who & The Daleks’, ‘The Skull’ and ‘Island of Terror’.

Dude had range.

I liked the first 2 movies. Seeing Adam Driver: Emo Sith Lord, after watching the series Girls was worth it on it's own.

But this 3rd movie was dull the whole way through. At no point did it even picked up my interest. I ended up checking my phone. Left for the bathroom. Considered walking out a few times, but I'm glad I caught Ghost Luke.

I saw it - enjoyed it quite a bit. I feel like if the previous movie had been spent actually setting up for RoS it would have been even better. I know in some ways they couldn't of course, because no one knew Carrie Fisher would pass, but even so...

Overall I felt like the acting was more expressive, especially Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver. Adam Driver seemed hotter in this than when he had his shirt off in TLJ, he had much more intensity.

I loved Billy Dee Williams, he seemed like he was genuinely having fun and enjoying being in the film.

A lot of the Force stuff seemed poorly explained (almost like it should have been handled in Ep. 8...), but overall it was ok.

Initially I thought Hux being killed off was stupid, but thinking about it later it does make sense that everyone saw through the "they overpowered me I dunno what happened" ploy since that wouldn't work on anyone irl.

I really liked that the ending didn't have the compulsory "must pair male protagonist and female protagonist", Rey Poe and Finn are last seen as a triad and it works. It doesn't need to be some stupid love triangle, it doesn't need any of that junk so the end didn't have any.

Overall I'd watch it again.

 gorgon wrote:
Actually, that’s the voice I imagine internet posters speaking in when they complain about Rey and Daisy Ridley.

Yeah, complaining that the character is a bit too good at everything makes someone seem pathetic.

Ridley isn't a bad actress. Rey is a bad character.

 Togusa wrote:
Well, obviously I think you are the one high on his own farts. Hamil was both underacting and overacting in the same movies while Fisher had the emotionnal range of a stone. Even the destruction of the home world and the death of her entire familly and friends barely phased her. Luke, whome she kissed and might have dated announced to her that she is his sister (and has been tortured by her own father) and she reacts with barely enough surprise to raise an eyebrow. Compare with Ridley who is enraged by Luke's lies to her; in tears at the idea of being without any answers about her passed; seething at the reveal of her ancestry and I am skipping some. I personnaly think she hardcarried the last movie and was a strong point of the Last Jedi.

The one thing that the sequels and classic trilogy have in common- they were making this gak up as they went along.

Ridley isn't a bad actress. Rey is a bad character.

But hey, guys- keep gatekeeping this franchise.

@Adeptus Doritos

I think you made a slight edit mistake in your last post. You quoted my words under the name of the person I was discussing with at that time.

epronovost wrote:
@Adeptus Doritos

I think you made a slight edit mistake in your last post. You quoted my words under the name of the person I was discussing with at that time.

Too late, he said it now.

Go over to his house and start swapping your clothing

I hate getting into Star Wars discussions as I generally have grown to greatly dislike Star Wars fans. But I finally got round to seeing this on the weekend.

I gotta say I enjoyed it quite a bit. Although I will admit that the film ultimately suffered from the fact that they had to spend half the movie retconning the last one for the story to work. I really hoped they would just go with what was left them but, LOL! Nope!

Sad thing is this story just reminds me of the Fan Fiction Star Wars Episode 7, 8, 9 I wrote when I was in College.

That being said I liked it and do want to see it again but I probably wont drop more money on it.

Voss wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While the role of Tarkin might have been less strenuous than a main lead, to say that Daisy is on par with Peter Cushing is simply asinine.

Any particular reason why? Not defending any other actors or attacking Cushing, but literally the only roles I've seen him in have him standing, reciting the script in a distinctly British way that's probably his natural accent and cadence. (Which seemed to be true since he talked in the same fashion in the 'history (defense?) of wargaming' video I saw him in).

Certainly nothing that proves acting chops.

its a fair point but I suspect he got the minimal Lucas direction of "y'know a sort of cultured Nazi"

whereas Daiz most likely got got "you know, a hero", "ok, what sort ?" "errm a heroic one ?"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Indeed.

Nothing says ‘no good at his profession’ like a near 50 year career. Starting in 1939, with his final role in 1986.

Yep. Only the truly rubbish can stick in any career for that length of time,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For further watching, I recommend ‘Dr Who & The Daleks’, ‘The Skull’ and ‘Island of Terror’.

Dude had range.

Not exactly the resume of Laurence Olivier though, right? Gotta respect a career that long, and surely he was a real pro. But ultimately he was more of a working actor in genre films, plenty of them low-budget and bad.