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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I yearn for the days of the Trade Federation - at least you got a explanation.

They also made sense - a group of planets unhappy about Republican taxes or trade routes etc etc

Trade Federation was very poorly explained. By looks it seemed like they were some sort of invading alien Empire who used robots to do the dirty work like fighting. But instead they were apparently some sort of federation within the Republic? How come they had huge fleets and armies in a Republic which otherwise was very peaceful and had little in way of military resources? Also it was never explained why they were in cahoots with Sidious.

If Disney just left the OT events and characters alone, they could pump out a bunch of passable Star Wars stories. Not great, but not franchise killers, either. Ewok adventures as imagined by Kevin Feige. The setting is where the value is and they haven't done much to even explore it and they've already killed the appeal for many by tinkering with the least expandable parts of the IP.

This is a setting that could tell heist stories, war dramas, fairy tales, wuxia adventures, crime stories and so on. screw something up? Well, a thousand years later...

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Yes, that's very true. But if it were easy, or even easy to see how it was done, everyone would do it always.

It's highly unlikely to ever happen, but Disney are rich. Very rich. They could offer Nolan a sack load of cash to make at least 1 Star Wars film.

Nolan + Star Wars + mega mega hype = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

He'd probably insist on complete creative control, but he did Batman, why not Star Wars?

Money talks.

Hell, even Nolan on autopilot is better than most directors on a good day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I yearn for the days of the Trade Federation - at least you got a explanation.

They also made sense - a group of planets unhappy about Republican taxes or trade routes etc etc

Trade Federation was very poorly explained. By looks it seemed like they were some sort of invading alien Empire who used robots to do the dirty work like fighting. But instead they were apparently some sort of federation within the Republic? How come they had huge fleets and armies in a Republic which otherwise was very peaceful and had little in way of military resources? Also it was never explained why they were in cahoots with Sidious.

I can't answer those questions, but the Trade Federation makes more sense than the First Order.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Yes, that's very true. But if it were easy, or even easy to see how it was done, everyone would do it always.

It's highly unlikely to ever happen, but Disney are rich. Very rich. They could offer Nolan a sack load of cash to make at least 1 Star Wars film.

Nolan + Star Wars + mega mega hype = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

He'd probably insist on complete creative control, but he did Batman, why not Star Wars?

Money talks.

Hell, even Nolan on autopilot is better than most directors on a good day.

Personally I think that Ridley Scott would be a better choice - He's more of an original type though - making a star-wars trilogy would probably bore him. No question Disney can afford whoever they'd like.

I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.

I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.

It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.

-

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If Disney just left the OT events and characters alone, they could pump out a bunch of passable Star Wars stories. Not great, but not franchise killers, either. Ewok adventures as imagined by Kevin Feige. The setting is where the value is and they haven't done much to even explore it and they've already killed the appeal for many by tinkering with the least expandable parts of the IP.

This is a setting that could tell heist stories, war dramas, fairy tales, wuxia adventures, crime stories and so on. screw something up? Well, a thousand years later...

Exactly - if they wanted to create their own star-wars universe they could have just done it without tying into the 7-8-9. It would have been fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.

I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.

It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.

-

Come on - if you studied film in college you must agree...Plot - is a very important element (if not the most important element to a story or a film). The plot in TLJ is so bad a preschooler could easily see the holes.

You are all smart enough to know that if Disney didn't start with Skywalker saga films, half of the internet would explode with nerd rage. So while creating new stories is surely on the horizon, Disney was smart to start with something familiar.

Unfortunately, I feel we live in a time that there is no possible outcome that would appease the vast majority of fans. Opinions will always be divided and the vocal minority will always be the loudest.

 dogma wrote:

Voss wrote:

Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.

Did you know that Boeing is selling F/A-18s to Australia? There may have been a lot of questions involved in the approval of the sale, but I'll bet you didn't hear about them; or the construction of the fighters.

I did, actually. I didn't have any questions about it, since it was a deal authorized by the government and and the equipment is going to a close ally. There was no point where the government wasn't involved in that deal.

The B-52 comparison doesn't work, because they stopped getting built in '62.

Yes. B-52s, clearly. Those were the last bombers ever produced.

Once KDY started building Star Destroyer analogs it never stopped.

According to... what? Certainly not the films, which I'm 99% certain never even mention KDY.
Regardless, someone should be asking who they're selling all these ships to. Buying battleships is even more glaringly obvious than buying fighters and bombers.

Manchu wrote:First, let's acknowledge that we're assuming that Disney can actually make a good Star Wars movie.

Eh. Disney can make good movies. There have been good Star Wars movies.

Most of the problems of this one seem to revolve around Johnson, who is billed as writer/director. As both, he's very fixated on pointless B plots, not delivering on plot points and desperately needs an editor willing to take stuff out. With a lot of work, even this film could have been turned into a decent to fair one. With someone else at the helm, I could easily see a good movie happen. Though sadly for part 9 (whatever the feth that is going to be about), I don't see JJ as that person either. They desperately need someone good at developing characters and making the audience care about them.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The novels were great,

Were they though? Or is that nostalgia? Some of them certainly were, but I dont think the lot of them were.

A lot, probably not.

I enjoyed the Thrawn trilogy and Shadows of the Empire.

 Galef wrote:
I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.

I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.

It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.

-

As someone who enjoyed TLJ and plans to see it again,

I don't see how you can be blind to the criticism. It's not like these complaints are nit picks based on obscure trivia (although there are a ton of those, too, like the stings of a swarm of bees).

You say you saw it through the lens of a film student? Perhaps that is the problem. The filmmakers who made the last three movies grew up adoring filmmakers who grew up adoring filmmakers who gave a crap about aspects to the film other than Er, film making. TLJ has a lot going for it, but it also Godzillas through the established canon and audience expectations (sometimes on purpose). The storytelling may be technically beautiful, but at the expense of every other valid concern. For example, we don't need to know Snoke for his part of the movie to work, so we cut it out of our sleek beast. Great! Simplify! Stick to the essentials! But, anyone who gave a gak about Star Wars could have told him it was a mistake not to at least include some off hand exposition from Kylo or Luke about Snoke. Luke's character is here now, and it's thematically appropriate! But now people are cancelling their Luke plushie orders because feth you too, RJ. The movie really kept you on the edge by subverting expectations and not playing it safe! Well, failure is the best teacher, I guess.

 Galef wrote:
You are all smart enough to know that if Disney didn't start with Skywalker saga films, half of the internet would explode with nerd rage. So while creating new stories is surely on the horizon, Disney was smart to start with something familiar.

Unfortunately, I feel we live in a time that there is no possible outcome that would appease the vast majority of fans. Opinions will always be divided and the vocal minority will always be the loudest.

I feel like this is a little different than fans being upset about the way the story played out. They could have killed off all the characters in a different way (that involved lightsabre duels and interesting plot twists) it would have been much better received. Some might not have liked it but most would have.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Yes, that's very true. But if it were easy, or even easy to see how it was done, everyone would do it always.

It's highly unlikely to ever happen, but Disney are rich. Very rich. They could offer Nolan a sack load of cash to make at least 1 Star Wars film.

Nolan + Star Wars + mega mega hype = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

He'd probably insist on complete creative control, but he did Batman, why not Star Wars?

Money talks.

Hell, even Nolan on autopilot is better than most directors on a good day.

Personally I think that Ridley Scott would be a better choice - He's more of an original type though - making a star-wars trilogy would probably bore him. No question Disney can afford whoever they'd like.

Sadly, I think Scott's best days are behind him...

 Galef wrote:
You are all smart enough to know that if Disney didn't start with Skywalker saga films, half of the internet would explode with nerd rage. So while creating new stories is surely on the horizon, Disney was smart to start with something familiar.

Unfortunately, I feel we live in a time that there is no possible outcome that would appease the vast majority of fans. Opinions will always be divided and the vocal minority will always be the loudest.

Citation needed.

And citation needed.

 Galef wrote:
I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.

Likewise. All this talk about the reasons these movies are on a spectrum between 'bad' and 'not good' and I'm sitting here thinking that they're 3 for 3 on 'bloody amazing'. And that's not me trying to contrarian, or liking them because other people don't, but because with each one, I walked out of the cinema feeling unparalleled elation at the spectacular film I'd just watched. And in the case of TFA and R1, I've watched them many times since and loved the each time.

I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.

It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.

-

To take a guess, I'd say it's a combination of a few things.

- With regards to things 'not being explained', 30+ years of comics, books, companion works and TV series ect have created the expectation that EVERYTHING in Star Wars has to have a 400-page history, whether that's an alien in the back of a cantina shot to a lightsaber to a ship to a planet. The new films don't have that (yet), and therefore can't possibly be as coherent (ignoring the fact we know as much about Snoke as we did about Sidious, and as much about Luke's childhood as we do Rey's).

- Pure contrarianism on the part of some people. There are people (not necessarily in this discussion, but elsewhere) who will set out to pick holes in what things aren't rather than appreciate them for what they are. Likewise, there are people who, because the new films didn't pan out the exact way they'd 'predicted', consider them a failure of storytelling (again, even when that expectation is based more on fan-theories and clickbait headlines rather than anything in the actual films).

- There will be people who are genuinely disappointed, of course. Star Wars is a lot of things to a lot of people, so there are any number of reasons people might not like the new ones. But there's definitely a difference between those people, and the people wilfully ignoring elements of the script/storytelling/acting to try and claim these are somehow poorly made movies.

- There's also the fact that people (especially online) that will be very loud and relentless in not liking something, while those that did enjoy it tend to pop into a thread or conversation, mention they liked it then go. So there's a disproportionate level of representation of the negative voices. I imagine if you stood outside a cinema and asked people what they thought as they came out, 10% would be negative, 80% would be positive and 10% would be beaming ear to ear like I was.

 Galef wrote:
I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.

I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.

It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.

-

I'm happy to point out flaws in movies I like. It's just discussion.

I don't think I've been overly critical of the movie in this thread. At the end of the day, I like it. BUT, I am disappointed with a number of decisions that the director made.

When the prequels came out, people said the same stuff - SW fans will never be happy, you can't make something everyone will like, people will pick apart anything, there is no movie that could live up to SW.

Denial ain't just a river.

The funny thing is, literally EVERYONE I have talked to in person loved the film.
Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.

I will say, if this was supposed to be the finale in the trilogy, I'd be on board with most of the complaints. But this is the middle part, so any plot holes are either:
A) going to be filled in by IX
B) easy to explain away with logic and/or suspension of disbelief or
C) if not A or B going to make me agree with most complaints

With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)

-

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I do have a minor disagreement though. Nolan has shown us that it's possible to make good films and a gak load of cash at the same time. Dunkirk was awesome and that made $500 million from a $100 million production budget. Yeah, not in the same league as Star Wars, but a healthy profit none the less.

IMO, Dunkirk wasn't that great. It felt unrealistic and too clean for a war movie and tried too hard to be "emotional". Much like Interstellar - great visual and sound world, but overwrought directing and writing.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If Nolan can do it, why can't Star Wars?

I've said before that because the Star Wars brand is so strong, Disney can afford to take a risk and roll the dice.

I think Manchu is right in that SW movie (or in deed, any movie of a strong franchise) doesn't have to be 'good'. It is enough that it is acceptable quality and provides the bulk of the fans what they want. TFA was just like that, tons of fan service and very little risk. Almost everything was recycled from earlier movies. With TLJ they actually dared to take bit more risk but still in conservative side.
Note how long Disney is taking producing a sequel to their primary brand, Frozen. They are taking years to write the movie to make sure it doesn't suck, because if it's a success, they can milk it for decades, just like SW.

New Star Trek movies are variation of this same theme. They are enormously recycled, but directing and writing is brought to modern tastes. Personally I think they blow and don't feel like Trek at all (well, the last one did, somewhat) but you can't argue with Box Office.

It's nothing to do with denial. I'm not praising these films because I can't tolerate the notion that Star Wars can be bad (I accept that there's maybe 2 hours tops of actually decent stuff across the Prequels), I'm praising them because so far all three have managed to excite, enthral, move and thrill me and make me feel like I was 8 years old again, which is what I ask from a Star Wars movie. I'd say TLJ and R1 are better than Empire and only slightly behind ANH in my personal rankings, with TFA equal to Empire, and are all immensely satisfying pieces of cinema.

Is it so hard to grasp that people might genuinely love these new movies, be 100% satisfied with them and be perfectly happy with then continuing on the current course once a year for the next decade?

I do tend to greatly enjoy a lot of movies that are often very heavily bashed (BvS, X-men 3, Wolverine Origins, among others) but I don't think that's anything to do with denial, I'm just perfectly happy to appreciate a film on its own merits and not rail against directors/producers/companies for not making the exact thing I wanted.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Hell, even Nolan on autopilot is better than most directors on a good day.

Personally I think that Ridley Scott would be a better choice - He's more of an original type though - making a star-wars trilogy would probably bore him. No question Disney can afford whoever they'd like.

A world of no. Scott is way past his "use by"-date.

 Galef wrote:
With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)

-

I'm not particularly convinced the need is fan-driven. I'd argue more it's a studio driven need to create a market for....stuff.

I'm not particularly convinced that there was a fan drive for a SW film every single year, let alone all the associated stuff.

 Galef wrote:
Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.

WTF you can't be serious. People who don't agree with you and your circle of acquaintances are "an internet phenomenon"? This is the definition of living in a bubble.

 Paradigm wrote:
Is it so hard to grasp that people might genuinely love these new movies, be 100% satisfied with them and be perfectly happy with then continuing on the current course once a year for the next decade?

Not for me. But I am not struggling to understand the fact that people have a different opinion from mine. That would be you and Galef.

Most of the people I've talked to in person are. "Yeah, what you have described are issues but they're not a big complaint for me to negatively impact my enjoyment of the film."


Which is probably fair enough, to be honest

Backfire wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally I think that Ridley Scott would be a better choice

A world of no. Scott is way past his "use by"-date.

TFA and TLJ are already like recent movies by Sir Ridley - raise issues then brush them away or ignore them.

 Manchu wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Is it so hard to grasp that people might genuinely love these new movies, be 100% satisfied with them and be perfectly happy with then continuing on the current course once a year for the next decade?

Not for me. But I am not struggling to understand the fact that people have a different opinion from mine. That would be you and Galef.

To clarify, as I mentioned before, I appreciate there are plenty of reasons why people might not like the film. But you are talking as if TLJ is an empirically bad movie which has a fundamental need to be 'fixed', which is ignoring the fact that (going by the exceptional critical response, generally positive reaction among casual moviegoers, a very strong opening weekend and opinions presented by several people elsewhere in the thread) a significant/large portion of the viewers are perfectly happy with it, consider it a genuinely good movie and has no need of fixing, course-correction or alteration.

You are essentially attempting to find ways to solve a problem that doesn't exist, according to a large portion of the film's audience.

 Galef wrote:
The funny thing is, literally EVERYONE I have talked to in person loved the film.
Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.

I will say, if this was supposed to be the finale in the trilogy, I'd be on board with most of the complaints. But this is the middle part, so any plot holes are either:
A) going to be filled in by IX
B) easy to explain away with logic and/or suspension of disbelief or
C) if not A or B going to make me agree with most complaints

With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)

-

Counter anecdote: Everyone I've talked to in real life varies from "Dislike" to "Hate".

a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
b) Logic seems to be where the issues arise. All I've heard is cries to suspend disbelief. Given that this movie decided to suddenly apply real-word physics to the hyperdrive, I'd say that is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.


Here's the thing. If the movies are going to become nothing but plot hooks for other media, I don't see a need to pay for the movies.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The novels were great,

Were they though? Or is that nostalgia? Some of them certainly were, but I dont think the lot of them were.

'Splinter of the Mind's Eye' was fairly good. So was Thrawn Trilogy, which also introduced a very popular new character, who is of course now wiped out along with rest of the EU.

Continuing along the "why it is hard to make good SW movie" thread, one word: Character bloat.
Well, that was two words. But think about it: when you start everything fresh, you can concentrate on few key characters, let them do and say stuff which defines why the character is "character" and you can keep the movie reasonably paced and it doesn't become 84 hours long. Also the viewers don't have preconceptions about "what should this character do", it's all fresh and new to them.
But then you start a new series and have legacy characters. You have to include them because the fans demand them, and also because they can provide background/link to earlier lore, making it all seem more grounded. But this creates huge problems. You can't have the old characters to be simple exposition devices, or victims to villains to provide motivation for the protagonists. On the other hand, you don't want the old characters too heroic, because that will make new characters look weak. New generation MUST be in the limelight, since the torch has to be passed. If nothing else, because the old generation actors age and no longer can perform the (very profitable) role. This also creates runtime and pacing problems since you now have two generations of characters to suck up screen time.

And finally, old fans who have imagined in their heads how their favourite characters return would look like, might be unsatisfied about the treatment their heroes are given. Assume for example that Episodes 1-3 really had been filmed first, and then rolls "A New Hope", with old Ewan McGregor returning to role of Obi-Wan. You think most Obi-Wan fans would be happy about the way he dies in Episode 4?

Nope...

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

And this is all known and above the board- unlike what is alleged for the First Order.

Krupp's activities are known, and were then above board too; the corporation still made lots of things for the NSDAP.

By the same token it isn't beyond the pale that KDY could build Star Destroyers for the FO. They are a Space Nazi corporation affiliated with Space Nazis who have access to a large chunk of the Star Wars Galaxy.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

And if KDY is building Star Destroyers after a major disarmament treaty, why isn't that raising eyebrows?

Why didn't Amidala's accusation of the Trade Federation raise all the Senatorial eyebrows?

Ha! And people in my group are split. I'm probably middle of the road. Enjoyed it, but there are flaws. I have one person who absolutely loves EVERYTHING star wars. You could slap a star wars sticker on a McDonald's burger and it's the most awesome burger ever. We also have a huge Star Wars fan who is Angry about it. Capital A intentional. Specifically them turning Luke into a pussy. It's worse than all of the prequels to him.

Like Manchu, I think that Galef calling the hate an internet phenomenon just because his group loved it is absolutely laughable. That's not how things work, but feel free to hand-wave it away.

 Paradigm wrote:
You are essentially attempting to find ways to solve a problem that doesn't exist, according to a large portion of the film's audience.

First and foremost, I am sincerely happy for people who like the film - I genuinely wished I liked it more, as I liked TFA and I love the new characters (i.e., Kylo, Rey, Finn, and Poe). I thought the trailer looked really good.

But imagine if the trailer started with Poe crank calling Hux. Then we see Luke throwing his father's lightsaber over his shoulder like it's garbage. Next up, Luke is tugging on the testicle-like teats of an alien as Rey grimmaces in shock and disgust. Then Kylo Ren's naked chest and Rey drooling. A close up shot of Snoke's corpse. Some voiceovers from Holdo and Rose, characters we don't know or care about, giving their supposedly inspiring speeches. Weird horse things smashing through the casino walls. And for the big finale, Yoda giggling like a maniac in front of a burning Jedi shrine. This would have been pretty accurate to the film's actual content and cohesion.

I have no beef with anyone who likes this stuff. People are free to like whatever the want. But I just want you to try and imagine people's reactions if this was how the trailer went.