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.

Leia planned to become Jabba’s sex slave?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Leia planned to become Jabba’s sex slave?

Depends on the fiction you read.....

Not really - she just got cuaght,

Voss wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

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.

Yeah, it seems really weird to say that they've never seen a criticism of the film that addresses why it is an awful piece of film making, when that's what most of the criticisms of the film I've seen focus on. The couple of things I liked about the film were cranky Luke and the Rey/Kylo connection.

The rest of the film was bad pacing, bad plot, poor use of characters, bad script, complete destruction of the universes verisimilitude and just everything bad about how to make a film. There was the core of a good story there but it was wrapped in layers of bad.

The Unbridled Rage take on TLJ is pretty close to my opinion of it.

Was it a disappointment to me? I decided not to see it in the cinema as I got the feeling it wasn't going to be worth it. Same for RoSW. When I did get around to watching them they were as bad as I thought they'd be, so no they weren't a disappointment.

 LordofHats wrote:

 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.

Kennedy is a big-time producer who has produced many blockbusters. She is one of the most experienced producers in Hollywood...and I think this was part of the problem. For her, Star Wars trilogy was just another day in the office. Hey, I have three movies to produce, I'll go around hiring directors, securing funding, making contracts and overseeing they don't burn all that money at once, job done, I have done this dozens of times before. She didn't realize that for a serialized setting-intensive trilogy you need an overall theme and story arc, it's not a mechanistic task but you need some sort of vision for it.

 LordofHats wrote:

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.

TFA hurt any possible sequel in more ways most people realize. Ending of the TFA is problematic because it forces anyone who starts the next project continue from very same moment TFA ended. In all other Star Wars movies, significant off-screen time takes place between them. Transition between TFA and TLJ is only one where no time passes. Finn is in a coma and Rey is handing lightsaber over for Luke. These have to be addressed immediately when the next movie starts. Finn's coma instantly creates the problem that his character does not progress at all. In TLJ he's still the same guy he was in TFA - a grunt whose utility was that he worked as a janitor for First Order. It's hard place to begin building the character up and led to very issues Boyega was unhappy about Finn's character arc.

Then Rey and Luke. It is evident that this meeting cannot directly lead to an action sequence. Whatever issues Luke is dealing with on his island have to be addressed via character dialogue and interaction, questions raised in the first movie need to be answered. Generally this kind of movie you want first act to be at least somewhat action-heavy, and all other Star Wars movies have it so. But since Rey and Luke have to take it slow, it means the parallel plot - that of the Finn, Poe and rest of the Resistance, has to be some kind of fight or battle. Although Poe is easy to place in such scene, Finn is not because he is just another grunt. So you have to create some kind of circumstances where Finn's only asset - inside knowledge of First Order - is useful again.

I tend to think Johnson should have taken even bigger risk and NOT make first act action-heavy. Maybe start with smaller space battle which ties to Poe's character development. Then take a time jump - similar to ESB - while Rey trains with Luke and has Force meetings with Ren. All the while Finn wakes up and gets trained as a commando or whatever, to improve his character power something plausibly useful for Resistance. It might have been criticized as boring and slow, but it would have addressed several issues in the finished movie and you could have dispensed with the bizarre four-act format TLJ ended up with.

There have been a few disappointing movies over the years but three that come to mind in the last few years, Baby Driver, Justice League and Aquaman.

Baby Driver seemed it could have been good but the lead actor was not enjoyable to root for, the story was weak and the music was the worst part of the movie to me. Especially since the director did Sean of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, two fantastic movies.

Justice league was just a mess from the very first scene, so bad they are remaking it for crying out loud.

Aquaman was just nonsense to me. It tried so hard to be a marvel movie, it wastes Jason Mamoa as a comedic lead rather than a bad ass haha. The visuals were okay but very dark which ruins 3D screening.

These movies tricked me during the days when I still trusted rotten tomatoes. Wonder Woman is an honorable mention, but only because it was highly rated when in fact it was an above mediocre superhero movie.

TLJ didn't have to start from the end of TFA it just had to tie in. RJ could've written it in media res for example. I think there are other, more critical issues with TFA. I also don't think the sequels should've been done in the first place. The best bit of Star Wars (imo) is the KotOR setting, primarily because it distanced enough from the Lucas-era that the writers have much more freedom.

Anything immediately following RTJ has to have the following: Grandmaster Luke (or at least he's on the way to that), a rebuilt (or rebuilding) Jedi Order, Leia and Han marry, and a New Republic. The EU had it's flaws, but an overwhelming majority liked this those elements. Dropping any of those is going to require some excellent writing to explain why x didn't happen and JJ doesn't have that degree of skill.

Musselman wrote:
Aquaman was just nonsense to me. It tried so hard to be a marvel movie, it wastes Jason Mamoa as a comedic lead rather than a bad ass haha. The visuals were okay but very dark which ruins 3D screening.

Well, I loved Aquaman, but I get why some might be unhappy with the character's treatment in the humour stakes. But dark?! That sounds to me like an issue with whatever cinema you saw it at. I saw it both at the cinema in 2D and at home on DVD, and in both cases it's very bright and colourful throughout - the only exceptions being the scenes that are supposed to be dark (the dive into the great deep, and the storm at night along the coastline).

It's a known issue, but the crux of it is - cinemas are supposed to increase the brightness of 3D movies to compensate for wearing the dark glasses. But a lot don't, because it wears out the projector bulbs quicker.

 trexmeyer wrote:
TLJ didn't have to start from the end of TFA it just had to tie in. RJ could've written it in media res for example. I think there are other, more critical issues with TFA.

'In media res' would have been even more daring for Star Wars what either JJ or RJ did with the movies. I'm personally all for it, but it might have been seen too highbrow. Nothing like that has been done in SW. And sure thing, both TFA and TLJ had issues, though generally they are not the issues most commonly stated by the critics. It's same thing with 'Phantom Menace' - many people are like "oh it would have been good but for Jar Jar" - nope...

And Star Wars episodes 1 & 2 disappointed me for sure. In fact Phantom Menace did not disappoint me that much at first, I was too distracted by all the cool new Star Wars scenery. I had been warned about Jar Jar and thought 'okay, he wasn't so awful, the kid Anakin was way worse but other than that this was okay' but the movie did not survive rewatching AT ALL.

Then I had somewhat higher hopes for Attack of the Clones because previews looked good - less Jar Jar, Anakin is grownup. Lucas has learned from mistakes right? And then I saw it and was like nope...
And then I had no hope for the last part and it was actually the best of them and also did not disappoint me because of my low expectations. Wasn't like GOOD or anything but did not actively insult me like 1 & 2.

 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 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?

Not one example you've given were multiple force users. Being able to use your one gift, acceptably, is vastly different from being able to confront a Sith Lord and winning using an array of powers without learning how to do them previously.

Kayback wrote:


Not one example you've given were multiple force users. Being able to use your one gift, acceptably, is vastly different from being able to confront a Sith Lord and winning using an array of powers without learning how to do them previously.

When did Rey defeat a Sith Lord by using force powers without some kind of general tutoring on how to tap in to the force?

Because you can't be talking about Kylo Ren as he was demonstrated clearly in the first film to not be a Sith lord and also was grievously wounded at the time she beat him (by doing the same trick Luke did at the end of Star Wars, clearing your mind and allowing the force to act through you).

Kayback wrote:

 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 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?

Not one example you've given were multiple force users. Being able to use your one gift, acceptably, is vastly different from being able to confront a Sith Lord and winning using an array of powers without learning how to do them previously.

1) Way to move someone elses goal posts.

2) Kylo Ren isn't a sith anything.

3) No force user has 1 "power". Using the force is a singular thing that can be done for many effects. And COMPLETELY untrained people with no knowledge or understanding of the force who were raised during the empires existence when jedi information was being actively suppressed were able to do 1 or more things on their own instinctively. Jedi training allows you to focus and harness all the force can do when and how they want to do it. But it doesn't change that anyone could do those things and that they mostly do it during times of stress and desperation on their own.

4) Rey is someone who was raised post empire to hear about all the many things the jedi could do and then managed to do them during times of stress. BTW now that the story is there are super force user bloodlines shes also the granddaughter of one of the most powerful sith lords who ever existed. She actually IS that powerful and SHOULD be doing those things.

5) If we are going to take the info from 789 seriously then Palp himself was probably subconsciously influencing everything about her to tap into things she didn't know about every step of the way. This is obviously a thing he can do since he can even do it through proxies. Palp influenced Snoke to influence Ren from accross the galaxy while being trained by Luke. So you really think he can't influence Rey to tap into gak when she is his preferred new host body?

Try again.

Has anyone ever been disappointed by a movie not in the star wars series?

 Matt Swain wrote:
Has anyone ever been disappointed by a movie not in the star wars series?

Have you actually bothered to read the thread - plenty of examples.....

The last couple pages seemed to have turned into a star wars only thread.

If you really hate she sw sequels, get the 'heir to the empire' trilogy by timothy zahn and red them, they're waaay better!

 Matt Swain wrote:
The last couple pages seemed to have turned into a star wars only thread.

So post the films you are dispaointed with then.

The most recent Star wars films were very disapointing for so many but then as noted so were the Matrix sequals,

I was told Inception was a clever film - but watched it and found it wasn;t

No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux. They scrapped the entire EU to give themselves a blank slate to do more stories in this universe and they settled on.... just doing ANH again. I have other issues with the movie too, like the pacing and a protagonist that doesn't earn a single one of her victories, but the total retread of what came before is definitely my biggest problem with that film. TLJ and RoS I went into with zero expectations so I can't say either of them disappointed. They were just as trash as I expected them to be.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux.

That was a major complaint for months after that film. I wouldn't say 'no one seemed to care.'

drop 'a force awakens rehash' into google. Everything from major entertainment sites to metacritic to comic book sites to reviews: Rehash, rehash, rehash.
First couple pages are mostly 2015/2016, but they continue onwards. Saying it is, arguing that it isn't, asking for polls about whether it is... people definitely cared about it being a rehash.

just finished reading The Last Templar and thought I'd check out the TV movie based on the book. Now, the book was no Da Vanci Code, but was readable. I couldn't get past 5 minutes of the movie (it's on YouTube if you dare).....sure it's a TV movie, but it's like they actually tried to make it bad. oh well.

Voss wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux.

That was a major complaint for months after that film. I wouldn't say 'no one seemed to care.'

drop 'a force awakens rehash' into google. Everything from major entertainment sites to metacritic to comic book sites to reviews: Rehash, rehash, rehash.
First couple pages are mostly 2015/2016, but they continue onwards. Saying it is, arguing that it isn't, asking for polls about whether it is... people definitely cared about it being a rehash.

Reception was still overwhelmingly positive though, that's what I was getting at. TFA was a very well liked film at release. A lot of fans who liked it were cognizant that it was a remake and didn't give a damn, they loved it anyway.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Has anyone ever been disappointed by a movie not in the star wars series?

I went to a trilogy prescreening of Unbreakable, Split, and Glass. It was my first time seeing Unbreakable on the big screen. I can't overstate how much I love that film. I tear at multiple points every time. I believe it was my second time watching Split in theaters. I enjoyed it again. Had a couple of really good beers. It was a good time.

Then they showed an interview with M. Night. He was impressively inarticulate for having made some of my favorite films (Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, Split) and I was very worried going into Glass. It took less than an hour for my fears to be realized. Glass was awful. I haven't watched again and won't. I can understand the intent of the movie, but the execution was terrible. So many little things were done wrong that could have easily been rectified. I don't know how he managed to screw it up that badly.

I also re-watched the four Indiana Jones movies a couple of years ago for the first time in over a decade and was shocked at how middling they were. As an homage to old adventure serials they're fine, but the praise they receive from the general population is vastly overstated. I'd go so far as to say they're decent films for the action sequences, but suffer from poor writing and clearly mark a degradation in quality for blockbuster action flicks. They're comparable in quality to Brendan Frasier's Mummy, which I do enjoy, but that is with the knowledge that it is a B movie at best.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux.

That was a major complaint for months after that film. I wouldn't say 'no one seemed to care.'

drop 'a force awakens rehash' into google. Everything from major entertainment sites to metacritic to comic book sites to reviews: Rehash, rehash, rehash.
First couple pages are mostly 2015/2016, but they continue onwards. Saying it is, arguing that it isn't, asking for polls about whether it is... people definitely cared about it being a rehash.

Reception was still overwhelmingly positive though, that's what I was getting at. TFA was a very well liked film at release. A lot of fans who liked it were cognizant that it was a remake and didn't give a damn, they loved it anyway.

The last SW movies were the prequels. A rehash of episode 4 is a massive step up.

Also, a rehash of the same general story line is nothing particularly noteworthy in a setting that's been rehashing the same ideas for the last 30 years in the EU. What's more important than whether or not the plot is revolutionary is whether or not the story is told in a way that is entertaining. And it was.

It was silly and full of plot holes, but it was fun.

Recently watched through all of the Star Wars films again (because everything is locked down again now and that seemed like a good use of the time!)

What I will say is that the prequels seemed better this time around. I don't know if it was because my expectations were somewhat lower (and, for the Phantom Menace in particular, they benefited from not having the unbelievable weight of expectation and hype that they did upon release) but I actually quite enjoyed them. Yes Hayden Christensen was a product of that time-honoured Hollywood tradition of choosing an actor for their looks rather than their acting ability, but I think once you realise that they are very different modes of film to the originals (being much grander in scope and much more po-faced/less fun) then I thought they worked quite well. Some great individual performances as well (Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan stands out, and it was a shame Christopher Lee didn't have more screen time)

By contrast, with the exception of Episide VII The Force Awakens (which is just a lot of fun), I didn't think they stood up as well to repeat viewing. It was like someone wrote an equation of the original series, or the bits that had come back from a focus group as being enjoyable to watch or fundamental to the experiences, mixed them up in a bag and then put them into a new film. Not to say they are not very well made films and don't have some good action sequences etc. By contrast I absolutely loved Rogue One, which managed to be attached to the other films without being completely governed by them, and I think actually managed to do something a bit new. And it had the balls to do a 'bad' ending, which again I always find impressive that the film makers have managed to get past the big studios and focus groups.

 Pacific wrote:
And it had the balls to do a 'bad' ending, which again I always find impressive that the film makers have managed to get past the big studios and focus groups.

I've seen criticisms of Rogue One where people were disapointed because they already knew the outcome before watching the film (rebels get the information and a lot of people die).

That's like suggesting Downfall is a disappointing movie because we know it's going to finish with Hitler eating a bullet sandwich.

My main criticism of Rogue One is that it was not needed in the overall story arc. It explains something which needs no explanation. Even all those prequels have more of a purpose. Rogue One actually takes away from the achievement of the Rebel Alliance in ANH by revealing that the famous weak point was actually purpose-built.

Then another big disappointment for me, partially again due to somewhat unreasonable expectations I loaded into the film: House of the Flying Daggers.

See I first saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and I LOVE that movie. It's a work of genius, not so much due to action scenes but because of awesomely nuanced characters. It is nothing sort of mind-boggling how they have managed to build so intricate character relationships into one movie less than 2 hours long. Most dedicated drama movies don't manage that.

Then I saw Hero, and again loved it. It wasn't quite as awesome as CT/HD, but still good and most of all, exceptionally beautiful, a visual masterpiece. So then came House of the Flying Daggers starring Zhang Ziyi whom I adore. This must be another good one!

In a word...NO. The plot didn't make slightest sense. Character motivations were completely undecipherable. Oh she was only PRETENDING half the movie. Why? For what purpose? That guy gets a dagger in his back and keeps it there for the rest of the movie! Wouldn't it hurt like hell and kill him? What the hell is happening?
In purely objective terms, the movie maybe wasn't absolute trash, but as I had started off with two masterpieces of the genre, a mediocre movie was going to feel huge letdown.

Backfire wrote:
My main criticism of Rogue One is that it was not needed in the overall story arc. It explains something which needs no explanation. Even all those prequels have more of a purpose. Rogue One actually takes away from the achievement of the Rebel Alliance in ANH by revealing that the famous weak point was actually purpose-built.

Just because something isn't 100% needed for an overall arc to make sense or progress doesn't mean that it has no value to the wider story of the world. It can add depth to the world, flesh out characters etc.

The 12 Labours of Heracles are not needed for the story arc of the Argonautica yet they are also a story worth telling and provide depth to the mythology and character of Heracles in that story, for example.

I also do not follow how the weakness being purposefully added to the Death Star in any way takes away the achievement of the rebels in Star Wars. It did not make them identifying said weakness from the blueprints and then exploiting it any easier. Knowing that there is a weakness somewhere in a construction as complex as the Death Star, which is also so slight as to be overlooked by the Empire, doesn't actually reduce the work required to find it.

My only problem with Rogue One is that its more of a fan-service whistle-stop film than it is a pure story film.

What I mean by this is that its clear there's a slew of Extended Universe characters in there who are big names to comic/book readers; but for film viewers alone they are almost all unknown names. So they each get somewhat limited screen time here and there. Granted the yare very characterful so they don't necessarily need a huge backstory for all of them.

Granted killing them off by the end does at least mean that it resolves most of those characters which is honestly a smart move for a stand alone film. It ends with those characters gone so they aren't left asking questions and the point we get too is answered through A New Hope.

Perhaps the only real downside is that Vader is far more dynamic/mobile/powerful than we see in the New Hope and following films. Which has been an issue since they did the Prequels.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Backfire wrote:
My main criticism of Rogue One is that it was not needed in the overall story arc. It explains something which needs no explanation. Even all those prequels have more of a purpose. Rogue One actually takes away from the achievement of the Rebel Alliance in ANH by revealing that the famous weak point was actually purpose-built.

Just because something isn't 100% needed for an overall arc to make sense or progress doesn't mean that it has no value to the wider story of the world. It can add depth to the world, flesh out characters etc.

All of the main characters were throwaway, they existed only for the movie and died at the end, I suppose it did add Jedi Temple, that was destroyed too...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I also do not follow how the weakness being purposefully added to the Death Star in any way takes away the achievement of the rebels in Star Wars. It did not make them identifying said weakness from the blueprints and then exploiting it any easier. Knowing that there is a weakness somewhere in a construction as complex as the Death Star, which is also so slight as to be overlooked by the Empire, doesn't actually reduce the work required to find it.

Of course it does. It's a difference between finding something out by yourself, vs having a huge fluorescent arrow pointing at it.
Actually the Death Star probably would have been impossible to destroy for the Rebel Alliance without Erso purposedfully designing it so it could be destroyed.

Complicated weapons system have weaknesses often overlooked in the design process. It's something intrinsic and doesn't need explaining or elaborating. It's like Prince of Wales being vulnerable to torpedo strike to prop funnel, and Bismarck having a single point of failure in the rudder. Legend of sinking of Bismarck doesn't need a German ship designer telling us "yea I hated Hitler so I designed the ship with a fatal weakness".

Backfire wrote:

Of course it does. It's a difference between finding something out by yourself, vs having a huge fluorescent arrow pointing at it.

But there was no fluorescent arrow, they never were told what the weakness was, only that a weakness existed and they hoped they'd be able to identify it from the Death Star blueprints. There was zero guarantee that getting the plans would actually mean they would be able to find the weakness, let alone then exploit it to destroy the Death Star.

Backfire wrote:
All of the main characters were throwaway, they existed only for the movie and died at the end, I suppose it did add Jedi Temple, that was destroyed too...

So by that logic does that mean all the characters in Alien apart from Ripley are throwaway characters? Or all the marines that died in Aliens are throwaway characters? Or
Leonardo DiCaprio's character is throwaway in Titanic?

On second thought, don't answer the last one.