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.

Captioned in Korean.

Distinct Nazi vibes in the whole setup of a big arena and black, white and red colours dominating.

 Easy E wrote:
That shot looks like it was designed JUST for that market.

The framing and the set-up.... screams of Asian cinema to me.

Leni Riefenstahl shot it earlier.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm trying to remember a Star Trek movie that didn't have a photon torpedo that hit the ship and sent people flying in some form of action sequence. Oh, right. There isn't one. ST 3: the death of Kirk's son. Generations: fist fights. The old show: fist fights and a ripped shirt for Kirk in every episode. There. Was. Action. You can't blame Abrams for putting action into a science fiction action movie. Regardless of what you want to remember the old ST films as, they were science fiction and always had action in them. Find me a ST movie that had no explosions from photon torpedoes in it, and I'll admit I was wrong.

There was often action in Star Trek because it is a good way to create dramatic tension. However the focus of Star Trek was always on a more philosophical type of drama than Star Wars.

I think the difference is that in Star Wars the writer creates an episode by thinking that this time we will explore concepts of loss and redemption, and writes up a scenario to create plot elements to facilitate the exploration of these ideas.

Whereas in Star Wars, the writer thinks of creating an exciting action adventure, which contains some elements of loss and redemption.

 kronk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the difference is that in Star Wars the writer creates an episode by thinking that this time we will explore concepts of loss and redemption, and writes up a scenario to create plot elements to facilitate the exploration of these ideas.

Whereas in Star Wars, the writer thinks of creating an exciting action adventure, which contains some elements of loss and redemption.

I think you meant one of these to be Star Trek.

At any rate, Filo Bedo Kylo Ren is a clone from Luke's Hand (right turn, Clyde). I like that theory.

One of them is War Trek and the other one is Star Stars.

Still twice as intellectual as Star Wars. There's nothing wrong with that.

A good adventure film is a great fun way to spend a couple of hours forgetting all your troubles.

Indiana Jones is only superficially a critique of western imperialistic concepts of formal academia versus traditional concepts of occult knowledge. Underneath the facade it is a solid pulp era thriller. That's why people were so angry when it moved into the Cold War era.

Aliens is just the concept of the higher powers of western civilisation as usually applied to primitive peoples, applied instead to western civilisation, casting the audience into the role of subjugation.

Plus anal probes. Fair play to them.

I wish they would just release the whole film, then we wouldn't need to bother to go to the cinema to see it.

I had the original three on VHS, can't remember if they were the THX version or earlier. Unfortunately I chucked them out when I packed all my stuff to go to Japan in 2007.

It would be great if Disney would release them again on DVD or Blu-Ray.

Can anyone confirm if the Knights of Ren have a alliance with the Knights of Stimpy?

Most of Star Wars has been set in extreme climates like Tatooine (desert) or Hoth (arctic). It's refreshing to see the action take place a normal kind of climate like Britain.

That big trench may be just a Force induced plot hole.

The thing about simple action based stories like Star Wars is that it's difficult to find lots of new intricate plot ideas that can be expressed mainly in simple action terms.

I'm not saying that's a major flaw, let's face it, all the Bond films have the same basic plot. It just means you should not hope for this kind of film to challenge you intellectually.

I'm not saying there is only one plot, but maybe there are only three.

There are supposed to be 12 basic plots in all drama. (Not sure I completely believe that.)

At any rate, Star Wars is an action series, not something like a detective drama. The plots of films I, II and III are widely recognised as dull crap that has inferior mechanical design, annoying characters. Maybe they tried too hard to be deep.

Until last night I had only actually watched the first released trailer, and I'm not going to watch any of the others. However, it is now one week to SW Day, and a trailer was in the advert break on telly last night, so I caught it, and it looked jpolly exciting.

Hopefully my family will agree to a cinema visit during the Christmas holiday. I saw all three of the original films in the cinema, and I would like to recreate that experience now that Star Wars seems to have got good again.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm watching the OT in order on Thursday before I see the Episode VII.


I just don't have it in me to watch the Prequels again.

I've never watched them. I've seen Part I in dribs and drabs on TV. I've seen a bit of Part 2. I never bothered to watch Part 3.

OTOH I saw all of Parts 4, 5 and 6 in the cinema, and I plan to see this new one there during Christmas.

It would be nice to watch the original trilogy with my daughter. Is there a current pressing that hasn't been 'enhanced' by Lucas?

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Well, i see it in 10 hours, more excited than i care to admit, getting fidgety at work!

I cant see this being bad (not expecting greatness) but rmember in 1977, star wars wasn't perfect, it was just refreshing and new and a good old story adventure.

If this film has a good pace, enjoyable story and some decent scenes and stuff, i think i will be more than happy.

The gist we are getting from the light press and folk who have seen it are already giving me hope.

This WONT be a repeat of 1999.
...
...

I agree with this (except I'm not going until I've got my wife and daughter through eps 4,5 and 6, so will boook tickets for after Christmas.)

Star Wars was a fun action movie series until it got boring in ep1. It was never the second coming of the Christ, and I don't expect more than another fun action film with a blast of nostalgia that will wipe away the sour memory of ep 1.

If I get that I will be happy.

Akbar moisturises a lot.

I saw the fiilm today and enjoyed it, though I felt it was a bit long. The ending scenes with the fight in the forest were a necessary antidote to the "death star" scene being the final major fight scene. Maybe they should have cut one of the earlier acts shorter.

I liked all the characters and actors except Hux, who simply was too young and timid to have the gravitas necessary to be a top ranking general.

The silver plated captain could have been used more. She was only in about three short scenes.

Every time I heard the name Po I envisaged the famous Tellytubby.

Agreed.

Hux is far too young and pathetic. I am presuming the Death Planet Star is the biggest and most important weapon the New Order have got. It certainly is an order of magnitude bigger than the original Death Star, which was commanded by a much more experienced general.

The Republic's star system was blown up including their planets and moons, so presumably whatever fleet they had was blown up at the same time. The rebels apparently are left with about a dozen X-Wings.

It was a bit of a throw-away, though. However it avoided all the tedious exposition about tax disputes that marred episode 1.

Hux simply doesn't have the presence that Tarkin does in the first film. (Neither does Ren, of course.)

 Ketara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, he had anger issues like any self-respecting Sith Lord. I suppose the difference between him and Kylo is that Vader had control and was actually competent.

Yeah. Seeing the supposed bad guy lose himeself to the point he ignites and starts chopping up a wall just makes him kind of...well, pathetic really. Bad guys can be full of rage/violence, but when the first thing it makes you think of is the two year old throwing a tantrum you saw yesterday, it really detracts from the whole 'bad guy' motif.

He's a conflicted, would-be bad guy. I wonder where he puts all that lovely flowing hair in that tight helmet.

Yes, I got both those points from the film. I remember thinking when the First Order blew up the Republic that it wouldn't help in the war against the Rebellion because the Republic wasn't actually supporting them.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Lets hope the contract with Disney included a gagging clause so he he doesn't spend his retirement bitching about the Star Wars sequels and how they're not real Star Wars films or whatever it was that he was slagging them off over in that interview.

Let George Lucas have his say. It doesn't matter anyway.

Back to Kylo Ren, I liked the character, I liked the actor, I thought he was handsome in a non-cosmetically-improved way and definitely resembled Harrison Ford. It's in the nose and to some degree the hair and hair style. Definitely believable as a son.

Rey has a strong resemblance to Leia in face/body, and to Luke in styling. No doubt this is deliberate.

Blasters have a stun mode. Perhaps the heavy blasters on an X-Wing or TIE fighter, comparable to a 20mm or 30mm cannon on a modern jet fighters, have got a low power mode and a high power mode.

 d-usa wrote:
They even had Finn know where the garbage compactor was for the sake of plot, and they didn't even have the courtesy of including a flashback to his janitorial days to explain why he knows...

He did work in the sanitation department, so it's likely he would have known.

I watched it again yesterday and enjoyed it the second time just as much as the first.

Frankly, Star Wars isn't Shakespeare or Chekhov. It never has been. It's a fast-paced, SF Fantasy action film, and this new one also has to trade on the nostalgia lots of people have for the original three (40 years old now!) It would have been a big mistake to radically change the way the film works in terms of pacing and exposition.

I honestly never noticed there were two different marks of TIE fighter, or whether they were shooting their rear guns or nor. I just thought it was good to keep the basic TIE fighter design of the original film and updated it nicely with new colours and weapons. It's inarguably one of the most recogniseable and characterful space fighters ever designed, much more so than the X Wing in my view.

I double loved it that Daisy Ridley was allowed to use a middle-class British standard accent with traces of Estuary English.

I think Rey is going to turn out to be the daughter of Luke Skywalker, hidden on Jakku to protect her from the scourge of the New Order when Kylo Ren smashes up the Jedi school. The ages of the various characters match up pretty well. It explains her force powers, affinity to Luke's light sabre, and her resemblance to Leia, who would be her aunt.

The way it could work is if Luke and Rey don't realise they are father and daughter.

This might happen if Luke's wife took Rey away during infancy to prevent her from getting involved in the Jedi training, became estranged fromLiuke and got killed before Luike could find Rey. This scenario partly explains Luke's self-imposed exile, too.

In the second film, Rey persuades Luke to train her. He is drawn back to the Resistance, and perhaps in an encounter with Kylo, gets killed like Obi Wan and Rey's parentage is revealed, simultaneously giving Rey a motive for revenge and a motive for mercy in that Kylo would be revealed as her cousin.

Yes, they were pushing the eyeball and solar panel wings a bit too far at that point.

The First Order will strike back, perhaps.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I double loved it that Daisy Ridley was allowed to use a middle-class British standard accent with traces of Estuary English.

Can you explain this to me.... in English this time??

A middle-class British standard accent is more or less what I speak, not that you can hear me, but anyway it's what is often called BBC English or received pronunciation.

Daisy Ridley has modernised it a bit with the odd slurred syllable, glottal stop instead of a final T, and so on, characteristic of so-called Estuary English. It's subtle and very natural. She sounds to my ears exactly like the well-brought-up girl friends of my daughter. Perhaps it is her normal speaking accent.

John Boyega OTOH has gone for a kind of mid-Atlantic accent. He's a sarf London boy, so his native accent probably is Estuary English.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary_English


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valhallan42nd wrote:
There's a lot of rivet counting going on for an imaginary universe that allows for sound to work in a vacuum.

A major characteristic of nerddom is pride in the accumulation of detailed information about non-existent facts.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

A middle-class British standard accent is more or less what I speak, not that you can hear me, but anyway it's what is often called BBC English or received pronunciation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary_English

OK.. makes a bit of sense to me... Though I clicked a link on that wiki article, and now have another question... I'd always thought the Cockney accent basically was cockney rhyming slang (as heard a bit in Lock, Stock, and Two-Smoking Barrels)... but apparently this isn't true.. So, in order to get a proper rhyme slang, would one have to speak in a Cockney accent? As in, would some of the rhymes not rhyme without the accent?

The true Cockney accent is a genuine regional accent of London, probably more or less disappearing by now, and rhyming slang was supposedly a development of the people who had that accent. However anyone can use Cockney rhyming slang, because it usually rhymes in any dialect of English.

Many people feel that the most authentic Cockney accent was achieved by Dick Van Dyke in the film of Mary Poppins.