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.

Well personally I liked TLJ most of the Disney Trilogy, because it didn't play safe and took risks. Of course many of the risks were realized and the movie truly has some very bad stuff. It was the first Star Wars movie since RotJ which didn't disappoint me as I went in without any expectations. Any way, not wanna turn in to TLJ sucks/rocks debate part 599435. What everyone surely agrees is that "Tag! You're it!" -method is a terrible way to make a trilogy. As much as I think JJ Abrams is complete hack as a writer, Disney trilogy would have been better if it had been written entirely by him. Or alternatively they had told Rian Johnson that he has to write the part 3 too. Anything but "write whatever crazy gak you want, somebody else will take over."

 Super Ready wrote:
So I was genuinely really pleased with TLJ when they actually introduced new force powers, gave us an unexpected villain kill and replacement, and made Luke believably jaded from age and experience, and not just "cookie cutter good guy who hasn't changed at all in 40 years". Honestly, I really don't understand the TLJ hate - it was perfectly in the spirit of the original trilogy, which you'll notice introduced new ideas about the Force with every film.

I didn't mind new force powers. It's to be expected.

I *DESPISED* what they did to Luke's character. He was the only one who didn't stay the same over those 40 years. Leia stayed the leader of the Rebel Alliance, sorry Resistance, but now with Force Powers, Han stayed the same as the rougish rogue who vagabonded around space with Chewie. Chewie was Chewie. Even Palpatine was evil dictator behind the sceenes. The Resistance was just a reskinned Rebel Alliance, the First Order was the Empire. The Death Star was the Planet Killer Starbase thingy. R2-D2 and C3P0 were the same. Yoda was the same cryptic little frog.

So why did Luke have to change? Seriously, why? No one else did.

Anakin literally killed a room full of children Sandy Hook style, but he got a redemption arc. Luke thought about preventing a bigger tragedy, only *thought* about it and he gets what? A character shift and shunted off to nowhere? Nope nopeity nope nope. I lost interest in Star Wars then. I watched TFA and enjoyed meh. I watched TLJ and was yeah, no. I didn't watch TROS until I could pirate it. I'd been front and center first showing of Ep 1,2&3. I watched Rogue One in 3D IMAX opening day. I watched TFA opening day. TLJ after 3 weeks. TROS was months later.

To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.

No true. But that's part of the tragedy. Disney should not have handed a blank cheque to someone who said, "new trilogy, trust me bro" and didn't have an epic roadmap.

Kayback wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.

No true. But that's part of the tragedy. Disney should not have handed a blank cheque to someone who said, "new trilogy, trust me bro" and didn't have an epic roadmap.

That would be Disney themselves. As crappy as both directors are, that isn't their job- they're present to direct the films they're hired for (nor, afaik, did either pitch the trilogy, Disney approached them with the idea). A coherent plot for the whole trilogy was Disney's responsibility to bear, and should have involved a writing team for the whole arc. Not just letting Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum make it up for each installment.

KK tried to do what Kevin Feige and Marvel have done without any understanding of what it is KF and Marvel actually do.

 Super Ready wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I was about as disappointed at TFA as I was to TRoS. This is not to say they are equally good movies, but I had higher expectations going into TFA. "A Star Wars directed by competent people! This is it finally!" And while the movie wasn't bad, I walked out quite shocked just at how much it was a remake of New Hope. Couldn't they come up with anything new? And what's with the bad guy, he seems so generic and boring. What is their master plan to this?
And of course, it turned out, they didn't have one.

So much this. I enjoyed TFA, but did think to myself they played it a little safe. So I was genuinely really pleased with TLJ when they actually introduced new force powers, gave us an unexpected villain kill and replacement, and made Luke believably jaded from age and experience, and not just "cookie cutter good guy who hasn't changed at all in 40 years". Honestly, I really don't understand the TLJ hate - it was perfectly in the spirit of the original trilogy, which you'll notice introduced new ideas about the Force with every film.

But noooo, of course Disney had to backtrack because of the ravening hordes, and wound up allowing the continuation of what looks like a gak-flinging match between Rian and JJ, culminating in TRoS being an absolute pile that a 6 year old could have written.

I hated that film and the time and money I wasted seeing it.
Almost every scene was pure and boring nonsense with some of the worst characters I have ever seen in a film doing incredably stupid things again and again.
Lowlights:

A dumb roadtrip to equally silly Casino world - apparently if you need to go and ride some space horses you can escape but not if you are in the Ship of Fools.
The Ship of Fools in the most boring chase sequence in the history of sci-fi - the sheer mind numbing tedium of this sequance is astounding watching as you watch nothing happening for a bout an hour - so the above trip to casino world can be made.
The sheer lazyiness of the writers in every scene - nothing makes sense, motivations are lacking for everyone.
Lack of urgency or the slightest element of tension.
Little things like three TIE fighter nearly destroy the Ship of Fools on their own, wipe out their fighters (so nothing excting like a dog fight can happen to break up the tedium), but the entire rest of the big First Order Fleet never launches a single one subsequent to this.

Its a stupid, tedious, badly written, awfully directed POS film on my opinon of course -

The only inovation this Johnson bloke managed was to drain the series of any excitiment, heart, soul, tension, characterisation and interest.

 Lance845 wrote:
KK tried to do what Kevin Feige and Marvel have done without any understanding of what it is KF and Marvel actually do.

This is the real problem.

I disagree with most JJ hate, but JJ has never seemed to be able to recognize gak writing when he sees it. Otherwise he wouldn't drag the same three gakky writers into pretty much every big project he makes and succeed in spite of them when he succeeds. I also don't think TFA forced TLJ to be such a gakky movie. TLJ had a number of good ideas but no real thought put into how they should play out or connect so it ended up being a mess. Then ROS came out and it was impossible to take it seriously, and wasn't even ROS fault the first 2 movies were to epileptic to produce a coherent finale.

I think that more than anyone Disney deserves the blame for the new trilogy's failure to inspire. Disney could have fixed all the big problems by exercising a degree of control over a multiple entry project (the one time we actually want executives to meddle a little bit) and Disney didn't seem to see any inherent problem in hiring different directors for one project and telling them to just do whatever.

 LordofHats wrote:
...and wasn't even ROS fault the first 2 movies were to epileptic to produce a coherent finale.

I disagree with this. For its faults, The Last Jedi did a great job setting up Rey and Kylo for the final film. It also laid some solid groundwork for a potential schism within the First Order with the differences between Kylo and Hux. It got rid of the dramatic dead end that was Snoke and did so in a way which demonstrated some real cunning on Kylo's part. It removed the need for Rey to be from some great family, instead she could just be Rey.

Abrams decided to throw all those hooks away in favour of a completely unforeshadowed (unless you play Fortnite, that is) return of Palpatine to ham it up and once again get toasted by his own lightning. Rey had to be connected to some powerful force family because feth normal people having great gifts, everyone has to be connected to some force bloodline bs like its a eugenics program. He was handed an interesting, complicated villain/antihero on a platter and decided to not use that as the focal villain of the story.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
...and wasn't even ROS fault the first 2 movies were to epileptic to produce a coherent finale.

I disagree with this. For its faults, The Last Jedi did a great job setting up Rey and Kylo for the final film. It also laid some solid groundwork for a potential schism within the First Order with the differences between Kylo and Hux. It got rid of the dramatic dead end that was Snoke and did so in a way which demonstrated some real cunning on Kylo's part. It removed the need for Rey to be from some great family, instead she could just be Rey.

Abrams decided to throw all those hooks away in favour of a completely unforeshadowed (unless you play Fortnite, that is) return of Palpatine to ham it up and once again get toasted by his own lightning. Rey had to be connected to some powerful force family because feth normal people having great gifts, everyone has to be connected to some force bloodline bs like its a eugenics program. He was handed an interesting, complicated villain/antihero on a platter and decided to not use that as the focal villain of the story.

The first two films were shameless in their use of plots from the original series - Immensely overpaid Directors and writters copying (but badly) previous films - easy pay check guys.

AFA was a very average remake of Star Wars.
TLJ shat out a dismal and boring film - subverting any expectation of excitiment except a tepid lazy version of several key scenes for ESB.
I have no interest in seeing the third film so can't comment on it.

I quite liked Rey but did not care if she was a Skywalker or not - still don't

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order.

...which, amusingly enough, was exactly what Lucas had planned to do with Luke as well, apparently.

My only real complaint about the sequel trilogy is that there wasn't more of Grumpy Old Man Luke. He was awesome.



Wandering vaguely back to the topic for a moment, I finally got around to watching X-Men: Dark Phoenix last night and was not as disappointed as I expected to be, from the reviews I had read of it. It wasn't actually bad... it just wasn't particularly good. They stripped all the fun of the previous movies out of it, leaving a fairly dark and depressing, but also rather dull and predictable story. It was better than X3, and stuck much closer to the source material this time around, but I'm still left wondering why someone thought it was worth the effort of doing the Phoenix story again rather than plundering another of the many, many, many movie-worthy X-men storylines.

Easily my least favourite of the 'Young Crew' movies, not one I would be hurrying back to re-watch (unless someone puts out an edit that just compiles all of the Nightcrawler bits) and particularly disappointing for being the movie that the current X-men continuity goes out on.

 insaniak wrote:


Wandering vaguely back to the topic for a moment, I finally got around to watching X-Men: Dark Phoenix last night and was not as disappointed as I expected to be, from the reviews I had read of it. It wasn't actually bad... it just wasn't particularly good. They stripped all the fun of the previous movies out of it, leaving a fairly dark and depressing, but also rather dull and predictable story. It was better than X3, and stuck much closer to the source material this time around, but I'm still left wondering why someone thought it was worth the effort of doing the Phoenix story again rather than plundering another of the many, many, many movie-worthy X-men storylines.

Easily my least favourite of the 'Young Crew' movies, not one I would be hurrying back to re-watch (unless someone puts out an edit that just compiles all of the Nightcrawler bits) and particularly disappointing for being the movie that the current X-men continuity goes out on.

Yeah thats my view of it - it was just underwhelming but not truly bad - I have not seen New Mutants yet which I think is vaguely in the same univrse as the others but not sure. The super powered folk in Dark Pheonix also seemed to be underpowered compared to Apoclaypse.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I still don’t know how anyone could watch the assembly of studio notes and kewl scenes that is TFA and come away anything but disappointed.

I was mildly disappointed there too, but let's face it, much like the release of Episode 1, NOTHING was going to live up to anyone's expectations... so when I was mildly disappointed I wasn't all that surprised.

EDIT: Yeah, best not to rehash the 'why I think TLJ sucks' yet again. Moving on...

 Vulcan wrote:
So... the man who never gave up on seeing the good in his mass-murdering, child-killing father being ready to kill his nephew because of what he MIGHT do in the future didn't bother you?

No, not at all. Don't forget that Luke is in his, what, 20's when the original trilogy happens? And by TLJ, he's much much older. People change. I'm in my 30s now and I know my outlook on life and many things has changed a great deal even in 10 years. Current me might not even recognise the opinions I'll eventually have when I reach that age.
It also tracks with how (with some exceptions, of course) most people are much more idealistic in their youth.
(Also, not that I'm sure it makes a difference, I'm not sure anyone ever explained to Luke about the child-murdering thing - that'd be an oddly specific thing to mention.)

So the hyperspace ram, which invalidates not just the defeat of both Death Stars AND Starkiller Base, but also invalidates the existence of those superweapons as well, didn't bother you?

On reflection, it did seem a little wild - but in the moment, it made for very cool cinema. It didn't suspend my disbelief or anything, until much later.
The technique not being used all the time can also happily be explained by:
a) spaceships being large, expensive things that the Rebels can't exactly afford to just purposely wreck every battle they're in,
b) would be of little use in any battle where you're facing multiple ships,
c) takes a great deal of sacrifice that you can't just expect someone to do without some deep, deep moral concerns.
d) the genuine possibility that maybe nobody ever considered trying it before?

So Rey pulling more and greater force powers out of her backside with no training whatsoever in direct defiance of eveything we've been shown about the force in all previous movies didn't bother you?

This did bother me a little, but it's something that appears in all 3 movies. You can't really level that accusation at TLJ alone.


...when it comes down to it - whenever I see criticism of TLJ, with the exception of Luke's treatment, I see criticisms that can very easily be levelled at the original trilogy too. (The hyperspace ram's equivalent being just about every physics issue with the battles in space.) You're either willing to write things off under the rule of cool, or you're not - but if you're not satisfied with TLJ while enjoying the original trilogy? Just admit already that the real issue is that it isn't the Star Wars you wanted.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
So... the man who never gave up on seeing the good in his mass-murdering, child-killing father being ready to kill his nephew because of what he MIGHT do in the future didn't bother you?

No, not at all. Don't forget that Luke is in his, what, 20's when the original trilogy happens? And by TLJ, he's much much older. People change. I'm in my 30s now and I know my outlook on life and many things has changed a great deal even in 10 years. Current me might not even recognise the opinions I'll eventually have when I reach that age.
It also tracks with how (with some exceptions, of course) most people are much more idealistic in their youth.
(Also, not that I'm sure it makes a difference, I'm not sure anyone ever explained to Luke about the child-murdering thing - that'd be an oddly specific thing to mention.)

So the hyperspace ram, which invalidates not just the defeat of both Death Stars AND Starkiller Base, but also invalidates the existence of those superweapons as well, didn't bother you?

On reflection, it did seem a little wild - but in the moment, it made for very cool cinema. It didn't suspend my disbelief or anything, until much later.
The technique not being used all the time can also happily be explained by:
a) spaceships being large, expensive things that the Rebels can't exactly afford to just purposely wreck every battle they're in,
b) would be of little use in any battle where you're facing multiple ships,
c) takes a great deal of sacrifice that you can't just expect someone to do without some deep, deep moral concerns.
d) the genuine possibility that maybe nobody ever considered trying it before?

So Rey pulling more and greater force powers out of her backside with no training whatsoever in direct defiance of eveything we've been shown about the force in all previous movies didn't bother you?

This did bother me a little, but it's something that appears in all 3 movies. You can't really level that accusation at TLJ alone.


...when it comes down to it - whenever I see criticism of TLJ, with the exception of Luke's treatment, I see criticisms that can very easily be levelled at the original trilogy too. (The hyperspace ram's equivalent being just about every physics issue with the battles in space.) You're either willing to write things off under the rule of cool, or you're not - but if you're not satisfied with TLJ while enjoying the original trilogy? Just admit already that the real issue is that it isn't the Star Wars you wanted.

If we're going to go down the rabbit hole...

1) I can see Luke going that way.... it was just handled very poorly. Perhaps if Yoda had said something along the lines of "Warned you, we did. Spending too much time looking toward the future, your weakness always was," referring back to Yoda's objection to taking on Luke for training in the first place, it could have worked.

2) Admiral Evening Gown could have done it with a simple ram in realspace, possibly with engines set to overload and detonate on impact.

You forget, hyperspace travel has been in use continuosly for thousands of years. THOUSANDS. By untold trillions (if not more) intelligent beings. You're telling me that not one, at no point, in any of the wars in the past, wasn't desperate enough to try it before Holdo did? I'll grant you innovation in the Star Wars universe is extremely slow and innovators extremely valuable (look at the lengths the Empire went to keep Erso Jynn working for them), but... really? No one?

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

I could also mention terrible, truly awful tactics used on both sides, the irrelevant side-trip to Monte Carlo planet, the waste of potential in Captain Phasma, the truly AWFUL fight choreography, and that there's actually a good story hiding in there if you address the problems, but that's moving the goalposts.

4) The problem is, it's a moderate-okay sci-fi flick if taken in isolation. But as a Star Wars movie, with all that implies, it was terrible. If you're going to make a movie in a franchise of movies, you have to operate within the rules set by those previous movies. If you can't do that, then just make a stand-alone movie.

EDIT: If you're really interested in continuing this, PM me. Let's not derail this thread any further than we already have.

Sinbad and the War of the Furies.

 Vulcan wrote:
Perhaps if Yoda had said something along the lines of "Warned you, we did. Spending too much time looking toward the future, your weakness always was," referring back to Yoda's objection to taking on Luke for training in the first place, it could have worked.

He did. They have a whole big conversation about it while the tree is burning.

2) Admiral Evening Gown could have done it with a simple ram in realspace, possibly with engines set to overload and detonate on impact.

They would have blown her ship apart the moment she came in range.

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.

4) The problem is, it's a moderate-okay sci-fi flick if taken in isolation. But as a Star Wars movie, with all that implies, it was terrible. If you're going to make a movie in a franchise of movies, you have to operate within the rules set by those previous movies. If you can't do that, then just make a stand-alone movie.

Except that none of the previous Star Wars movies have ever done that. Remember when lightsabers were blue for the good guys, or red for the bad guys, until Lucas decided that green looked better than blue when they wanted to film a battle outside?

Star Wars isn't sci fi. It's fantasy in space, and it's always been made up on the fly to suit the whims of the director.

Sinbad the sailor or Sinbad the comedian who may or may not have played a genie?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Sinbad the sailor or Sinbad the comedian who may or may not have played a genie?

Yes the sailor, Not the comedian. This was a god-awful 2016 release, that probably went straight to video. Staring the WWE star, John (Morrison) Hennigan. Highly not-recommended (unless you enjoy laughter at incredulity). If you are looking for Dynamation you are barking up the wrong tree. The bad part is that I spent three dollars for a used DVD copy in a thrift shop.

...when it comes down to it - whenever I see criticism of TLJ, with the exception of Luke's treatment, I see criticisms that can very easily be levelled at the original trilogy too. (The hyperspace ram's equivalent being just about every physics issue with the battles in space.) You're either willing to write things off under the rule of cool, or you're not - but if you're not satisfied with TLJ while enjoying the original trilogy? Just admit already that the real issue is that it isn't the Star Wars you wanted.

No cos you wrong in somehow knowing what i want, its about as accurate as me saying you only like TLJ cos you like Rian Johnson....

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Star Wars films are light entertainment - always have been.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.

Exactly - if people don't like Depressed Old Man Luke, that's fair (although personally I do) but I don't understand why they blame Rian Johnson from it, when the character was laid out as he was already in TFA?? Seriously, look at that ending of TFA where Rey offers the lightsaber to very reluctant looking Luke - does the guy looks like he is going to pick it up, jump into his X-Wing and go fly to kick Snoke's hologram arse?
No he does not.

I totally and completely expected after TFA that Luke is going to be reluctant coming out of his hermitage, then the trailers showed Luke reluctant coming out of his hermitage, then in the movie, Luke was reluctant to come out of his hermitage and NOW people were up in the arms "This is an outrage! Johnson does this only to subvert expectations!!" Really? You guys didn't see THIS coming?

Honestly my problem with the whole Luke as a hermit is that it relies upon content that we never really see in the films. We get snippets that something went really wrong, but we don't actually see it.

Film 1 of the new trilogy should have opened with the optimistic Luke starting to train the new padawans, his sister and Han's son. It should have show us his struggles to rebuild the Jedi on his own against a Galaxy that basically forgot about them and is going through huge turmoil as they attempt to rebuild a republic whilst still fighting off remaining Imperial forces; independent systems etc...

If we'd seen Luke try, struggle and fail we'd have been more open to then seeing him as a hermit; broken, shattered and perhaps with some sinister start of the Sith already working to break Luke in the background.



The problem for many was the last time we saw Luke he was a hero of 3 films. Who had won against the Emperor himself. We saw a hero so seeing him broken and damaged is a hard sell for many because they don't connect the dots mentally that a hero can fail and fall and perhaps end up someone they don't like as much as they used too.



Again if we'd seen the fall it would have worked; I put it down to the systematic general lack of an overall plot line to link the three films together form the outset. The writing team lacked a coherent vision for the series so we got two films that basically tried to not make and tell a story, but instead make and sell a formula.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly my problem with the whole Luke as a hermit is that it relies upon content that we never really see in the films. We get snippets that something went really wrong, but we don't actually see it.

Film 1 of the new trilogy should have opened with the optimistic Luke starting to train the new padawans, his sister and Han's son. It should have show us his struggles to rebuild the Jedi on his own against a Galaxy that basically forgot about them and is going through huge turmoil as they attempt to rebuild a republic whilst still fighting off remaining Imperial forces; independent systems etc...

If we'd seen Luke try, struggle and fail we'd have been more open to then seeing him as a hermit; broken, shattered and perhaps with some sinister start of the Sith already working to break Luke in the background.

I agree with this in principle (we never got to see just what exactly Snoke did to corrupt Ben) however the film-makers clearly wanted to promote new cast and make the movie about them. Putting Luke into central role right from the start would have been counterproductive to that. It's hard to fault that decision because lets face it, the old cast is, well, old. Also it mirrors the New Hope where Obi-Wan, protagonist of the prequels, is reduced into mentor and father figure - and killed off in very first movie. I guess if the prequels had been made first, Obi-Wan fans would have whined how his character was ruined in Episode IV...

 Mr Morden wrote:

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Honestly, you are the first person I've seen to level these specific criticisms, and to that I say fair enough. I don't agree, but with the exception of the derivative copying point - I loved TLJ for the new things it tried - at least they're more valid than every other argument I've come across.
I feel a bit bad about contributing to the derail here, so I will indeed leave the Star Wars talk there.

...so, getting back to other disappointing movies. What do we think of the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films? I did enjoy them - but they weren't as eye-opening as the first (perhaps that's an impossible ask) and I was deeply disappointed in the direction the 3rd took in particular.

Backfire wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly my problem with the whole Luke as a hermit is that it relies upon content that we never really see in the films. We get snippets that something went really wrong, but we don't actually see it.

Film 1 of the new trilogy should have opened with the optimistic Luke starting to train the new padawans, his sister and Han's son. It should have show us his struggles to rebuild the Jedi on his own against a Galaxy that basically forgot about them and is going through huge turmoil as they attempt to rebuild a republic whilst still fighting off remaining Imperial forces; independent systems etc...

If we'd seen Luke try, struggle and fail we'd have been more open to then seeing him as a hermit; broken, shattered and perhaps with some sinister start of the Sith already working to break Luke in the background.

I agree with this in principle (we never got to see just what exactly Snoke did to corrupt Ben) however the film-makers clearly wanted to promote new cast and make the movie about them. Putting Luke into central role right from the start would have been counterproductive to that. It's hard to fault that decision because lets face it, the old cast is, well, old. Also it mirrors the New Hope where Obi-Wan, protagonist of the prequels, is reduced into mentor and father figure - and killed off in very first movie. I guess if the prequels had been made first, Obi-Wan fans would have whined how his character was ruined in Episode IV...

Having a whole new generation was cool - I liked Rey and Ben could have been interesting - having them actually unite would also have been interesting. Having the rebellion /resistance be wiped out quickly rather than take tedious hours of the worst chase scene in film history again sets more up. Have survivors flee, you can have the crappy Casino world if you like but have it with people not caring that the FO is in control - life goes on for the rich. Have a desperate evac of the rebel ships as they are cut to pieces, the fighters unable to hold off the FO squadrons and then have the Hypserpace ram in the middle of the battle so in the cnfusion the shuttles limp to not Hoth.

But all these or other possibilites were lost due to the awful director and writers of TLJ - what a wast of money, time and acting talent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Super Ready wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Honestly, you are the first person I've seen to level these specific criticisms, and to that I say fair enough. I don't agree, but with the exception of the derivative copying point - I loved TLJ for the new things it tried - at least they're more valid than every other argument I've come across.
I feel a bit bad about contributing to the derail here, so I will indeed leave the Star Wars talk there.

...so, getting back to other disappointing movies. What do we think of the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films? I did enjoy them - but they weren't as eye-opening as the first (perhaps that's an impossible ask) and I was deeply disappointed in the direction the 3rd took in particular.

Spoiler:

In particular - I really wanted Neo's Sentinel takedown at the end of Reloaded to be a hint that the "real world" was in fact, just another layer of Matrix, and he'd fulfil the prophecy of the One for good this time, by breaking out of that too.

I did not enjoy them - and there was that cringe worthy sex scene - Ughh. Oh look Neo is superman - but...meh.

They just seemed tired and uninteresting - lots of disperate plot elements that never seemed to matter (hey look vamps and werewolves) - Monica Bulici wasted in a film yet again.

They spent alot of time on a chase scene whereas the one in T3 ( a better film) had a better one at the same time

Matrix Reloaded was somewhat mediocre compared to the first Matrix, and Revolutions was downright bad and most things in the movie made no sense. I mean it was like Attack of the Clones of the Matrix series. I was quite disappointed at both of them to be sure.

Another significant disappointment for me was Bram Stoker's Dracula by Coppola. I LOVE the original book but it hasn't really seen any proper film adaptation. So I was super excited for this because it was supposed to be accurate depiction of the original story and it was made by Coppola for pete's sake! Can't go wrong there right?

Well the movie starts and we see Dracula who is this weird cartoonish wizard instead of East European gentleman. The movie had distinct B-movie feel because Coppola shot it entirely in studio using only traditional film-making tricks and effects. It is very theatrical and seems more like a stage play than a movie. Finally, they tried to add a genuine love story between Dracula and Mina, thus making Dracula supposedly a sympathetic character and it was just very awkward. Casting was bad all around, less said about Keanu in this role, the better.

I would not call it a complete disaster of a movie, but it's a 2.5 star movie tops. Of course some 'usual suspects' heaped praise on it because it was Coppola, it has to be good, right? Posterity however has not listed this amongst his masterpieces and for a good reason.

 insaniak wrote:

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.

Or that little slave kid who force pulled the broom into his hands.

Or Kyle Katarn pulling his blaster to his hand.

Or Ezra in Rebels before he gets any real training.

Or how people think Han is force sensitive and it's how he keeps narrowly escaping his bs.

Or the literal feth tons of cases in all starwars media where people are shown to be using force powers without training.

You know how the jedi know to test people for their medichlorians or whatever? They show signs of being force sensitive. Sometimes it's small thinks like knowing stuff or getting feelings. And sometimes it's bigger stuff like pulling an object to them when they need it in times of stress.

Hey, remember when The Child in Mandalorian lifted that giant monster using it's mind? Who trained it to do that?

But hey. Only Rey, am I right?

 Lance845 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.

Or that little slave kid who force pulled the broom into his hands.

Or Kyle Katarn pulling his blaster to his hand.

Or Ezra in Rebels before he gets any real training.

Or how people think Han is force sensitive and it's how he keeps narrowly escaping his bs.

Or the literal feth tons of cases in all starwars media where people are shown to be using force powers without training.

You know how the jedi know to test people for their medichlorians or whatever? They show signs of being force sensitive. Sometimes it's small thinks like knowing stuff or getting feelings. And sometimes it's bigger stuff like pulling an object to them when they need it in times of stress.

Hey, remember then The Child in Mandalorian lifted that giant monster using it's mind? Who trained it to do that?

But hey. Only Rey, am I right?

Thats fair - there seems to be plenty of low level or untrained force users about - I guess under the Jedi they were either trained or worked for themselves. Under the Empire pretty sure they were hunted down. There should be some about - we have the failed Jedi priest guy in Rogue One as well.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Honestly, you are the first person I've seen to level these specific criticisms, and to that I say fair enough. I don't agree, but with the exception of the derivative copying point - I loved TLJ for the new things it tried - at least they're more valid than every other argument I've come across.

Then you weren't really looking at actual criticism of the film. Terrible storytelling and pacing in particular were very common problem points, even here in the endless SW movie threads. I know I ranted about them enough.

I'm honestly curious what 'new' things it tried though. The derivative elements are easy to see- salt planet is basically a retread of the Hoth battle, the opening is a (very bad) retread of the Hoth escape (the only 'new' bit is that they failed in a laughable fashion), other than that its a series of random chases and gaffs leading to temporary capture and escape, then the survivors group up and wander off. That's definitely not new for star wars- there's at least two chase/capture/escape sequences per prequel.

Was Luke really that inconsistent? One of the things I enjoyed about it the most was that it was consistent with Luke. He's always been a man of indecision, and poorly thought out plans.
This is the same guy who wanted off Tatooine at any price, then balked at the idea of going to Alderaan to save a princess.
The same one who decided to take on a whole space station in order to save a princess, with no real plan.
The dude who abandoned the rebellion in order to train, then abandoned his training for what was obviously a trap during Empire Strikes Back.
Then blew the cover of the forest moon of Endor sabotage mission in a poorly thought out attempt to save Vader, then walked into the Imperial Base.
His heart's in the right place, always, but Luke is really, really inconsistent. It's no surprise that he gives up on training and trainees with alarming regularity, and lives with the Porgs.

The only really well thought out plan he was a part of was the Jabba's palace caper- and since Lando was involved, I imagine it was his plan or Leia's. Those two had subterfuge and execution of intricate schemes.

I just really enjoyed TLJ Luke. He was as awful a master as he was a Jedi, which I thought was hilarious. Now if you want to put criticism on it, point to Holdo's operational security which led to a totally avoidable mutiny, and the absolute waste of time that was the Casino planet/Slicer subplots. If you want to spend that much screen time on something, it ought to be somewhat meaningful.