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.

Wow that was a great watch!
I never knew how fudged the whole situation was. Its such a shame they did not get PJ to run things from the start and put in the prep he needed.

LOTR trilogy is a timeless masterpiece, as good now today as it was nearly 20 years ago (20 years!!!)

The hobbit is a souless jumbled mess of what corporate overlords who are only interested in $$ think will sell, rather than making a good film.
The source material Is like a 300 page book.. it should never have been forced into 3 films.. its madness..

Taurial could have worked as a romantic interest for Legolas, and it seems like they might have originally been thinking about it. But instead they went with something so antithetical to the setting. I'm surprised that the Tolkien estate allowed it honestly, they are famously strict with the IP.

They could have gotten a story that checked all their boxes without breaking the setting too, which is a shame. Really, given the interaction we see between Taurial and Thranduil it really seems like that was originally the intended story and they even filmed one scene with it. Then it got changed, but they still used that one scene.

There was a story in there, it just got lost amongst all the material.

It's been a while since I've seen it, so I'm probably way off base but... I believe Legolas had unrequited feelings for Tauriel, who did not share them. Thranduil was encouraging this match, because politics.

However, Tauriel fell for Fili, his death breaking her heart. And Legolas, apparently being the red pill type went, "ARGH, DAMN YOU DWARFS, This is YOUR FAULT. I hate you FOREVER."

Thus explaining his general jerkiness at the start of Fellowship to Gimli.

Because that needed explaining.

 Vulcan wrote:
I see lots of posts about bad actors ruining a movie; how about the other half of the subject - bad characters ruining a movie?

Avoiding the obvious target (TLJ), I'll head over to a different low-hanging fruit, The Hobbit, and the elf maiden there explicitly there for the needless romance subplot. Watched it once, and once was too much because of that awful change.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's the character or the actor. Case in point? Rufio from the movie "Hook." I literally cheered when that brat got stabbed. Some time later I put myself through the torture that was the live action "Fist of the North Star" movie, and I was treated to a rendition of Bat that was every bit a repeat of Rufio by the same actor. He didn't reprise that character type in "But I'm a Cheerleader", which leads me to think he does have at least SOME range, but for whatever reason BOTH of those other characters ride the same archetype and brought down the film experience for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
I still find it somewhat amusing that the entire internet was complaining about Snyder's dark take on the DC universe...then Justice League came out, and everyone was suddenly demanding Snyder's version.

I think people complained about that film mainly because pop media was telling them they should complain about that film. Nolan did a darker take on the entire Batman mythos with what may be the gakiest Batman ever filmed and the moviegoers did fething backflips, and don't get me started on how he reapproached villains to the point of being completely different takes on the characters yet we have to hear people bitch that the same thing was done to Lex Luthor. I think there's a massive double standard there, and I'm personally glad we'll get a Snyder cut despite being stuck behind a pay wall I'm not looking forward to having to address.

 Just Tony wrote:

I think people complained about that film mainly because pop media was telling them they should complain about that film.

It really wasn't very good, though. Steppenwolf is an astoundingly boring villain, Batman was severely under-utilised (although I might be biased there), and the entire movie essentially amounted to 'Gather a team of heroes who will then wait around for Superman to come save the day. Yay!'

The only thing that made it watchable for me was the liberal sprinkling of Whedon-esque one-liners. So I'm not particularly optimistic about the Snyder rework actually being better.

Nolan did a darker take on the entire Batman mythos with what may be the shittiest Batman ever filmed and the moviegoers did fething backflips, and don't get me started on how he reapproached villains to the point of being completely different takes on the characters yet we have to hear people bitch that the same thing was done to Lex Luthor. I think there's a massive double standard there, and I'm personally glad we'll get a Snyder cut despite being stuck behind a pay wall I'm not looking forward to having to address.

It's not a double standard at all. People expected Batman to be dark. It fits the character. The lack of that darkness was a very large part of what people hated about the Schumacher movies, and Nolan's only error (aside from whatever the feth was going on with Bane's voice) was in making Batman too one-dimensional, focusing on his physical attributes and ignoring the cerebral.

But that same dark approach doesn't work for every hero. Making a Superman story as if it's a Batman movie is a terrible idea, because Superman should have a very different outlook. I don't even like Superman, but even I found Man of Steel just painful for the way it handled the character. Moreso because you got glimpses of how well Cavill could do the character if he was allowed to do it properly.

 Just Tony wrote:

I think people complained about that film mainly because pop media was telling them they should complain about that film.

Rubbish. People complained about the film because it was legitimately a bad film.
Character arcs were non-existent, the threat was a canned cliche, the action was dull, the cgi was indifferent, the sets were boring and poorly lit, the writing was indifferent, the actors were boring.
There really isn't anything to recommend it as a film, a story, or even vague entertainment for its extremely excessive runtime.

 Compel wrote:
There was a story in there, it just got lost amongst all the material.

It's been a while since I've seen it, so I'm probably way off base but... I believe Legolas had unrequited feelings for Tauriel, who did not share them. Thranduil was encouraging this match, because politics.

However, Tauriel fell for Fili, his death breaking her heart. And Legolas, apparently being the red pill type went, "ARGH, DAMN YOU DWARFS, This is YOUR FAULT. I hate you FOREVER."

Thus explaining his general jerkiness at the start of Fellowship to Gimli.

Because that needed explaining.

Seemed like Thranduil was actively discouraging the match.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Emilia Clarke wasn't what ruined GoT.

That wasn't a problem of actors, but of writing.

I assume probably you say so because you didn't like how her storyline ended. IMHO they should have put her to that path way earlier, the mad queen twist is one of the best ideas in the more recent seasons of GoT, even if poorly developed.

I'm telling something different: I couldn't stand her character from day 1, not just season 8. Maybe because her storyline was never connected to all the other characters for a long time, but I've always considered the worst part of the show every moment she was on screen.

And the fact that I couldn't stand her pretty much in anything she's starred (with the exception of Me Before You) despite being very funny and interesting outside acting makes me think she's a very bad actress.

I was seeing that path from day one too. She essentially cheated in her every victory. Gets army for free through loophole, gets city for free, through loophole. gets Dothrakie, through loophole. And the entire time she is being built up by her followers as this god queen, i knew the second she would face resistance, she would change.

Unlike say Jon Snow who lost every battle he ever fought but still lauded by all and always had to be saved by someone or who wondered about north of the Wall until he could get a Dragon killed, or who told his sisters the one thing the woman he said he loved told him not to? or always protected his best mate fat useless Sam so he coudl ignore any and all rules of the NW and become part of the stupidest most useless Small council in thrall to a inhuman manipulator who apparently was just setting up everyone else to die. The last few seasons were a complete gak fest with the last half an hour making zero sense except to give GRM his proxy Sam the best ending he could. Snow would have been cut down like a traitorous dog by the Dothraki or the Unsullied as soon as they discovered what he did, then the Dothraki would have gone on the rampage without Dany controlling them.

Dany suffered through loss of husband and child, managed to survive, and used everything she could to make her way in the world, often making the world a better place for many (ask the thousands of slaves she freed) - she used no more loopholes than any other character could or would who had any interest in survival.

She also did nothing that any normal general would not have done - she lost so much because the writters had Tyrion constantly give her poor and foolish advice. If she had burned the Red Tower when she arrived for instance, there would not have been so much dead - thats all on Tyrion. She should have listened to Grandmother Tyrell and been the Dragon from the begining and took the kingdoms as her ancestors did.

Of coruse the writers had to fill up several seasons so they had to make her fail by listening to stupid advice and having stealthy teleporting pirate fleets with dragon seeking missiles.

Can we all not agree that, as insufferable as both those two were (and my love of the whole affair cratered the moment I realised they were the centre pieces of everything - seriously why would you make the two most annoying and uninteresting characters the focal point?), the later seasons of GoT had far more problems than just two actors lumped with two god-awful characters.

 Compel wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I don't see how a Snyder cut is supposed to fix the major issue of the Justice League: That DC didn't want to take the time needed to establish the characters aside of Superman.

One of the funny things about that is that there's an animated movie that basically IS Justice League, and might even end up being *closer* to the final Snyder Cut than Josstice League...

It's not the BEST of movies out there, and I've got plenty of issues with some characterisation (Looking at you Diana), but Justice League: War basically did most things the live action movie did, but better, AND had to introduce not just more characters than JL, but the whole rebooted universe as well.

You'd watch the movie, you could work out exactly who Shazam was, Cyborg was, why you should care about them. You learned everything major about the Green Lanterns and Hal Jordan, through one conversation with Batman in a sewer.

Like I said, it wasn't a perfect movie by any means, but several of the characters had actual *arcs* in the story and it didn't need to be a 6 hour miniseries.

The New 52 was clearly Geoff John's attempt to replicate Marvel's success with the Ultimates. Make a comic line designed from the ground up to be the blueprints for direct film adaptations. The main problem is just that it got shoehorned on top of studio mandates built on the success of the Dark Knight films. The animated films managed to show the potential of those arcs by being pretty clean adaptations from a clean slate.

Whedon's JL is definitely a "worse than Hobbit" situation. My favorite part of the whole film is that his name appears on screen with the words "I tried" in the opening credits. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a film that starts with an apology from the creator before. It's the worst kind of hashed together studio mandated requirement laden messes out there and at no point really had a chance.

The Snyder Cut will be "better" if only because it will be artistically consistent. That doesn't mean it will be "good". One of the great oddities about Snyder in general is he's got all the skills to put together a great film. Shot composition, cinematography, even his themes are strongly worked into the narrative. He stumbles because too often he focuses on style and symbolism over narrative structure and his characters often come across as emotionally detached and lacking real purpose. It's possible the film will be something great, but there's really no telling. His strengths have always made for great trailers.

 insaniak wrote:
But that same dark approach doesn't work for every hero. Making a Superman story as if it's a Batman movie is a terrible idea, because Superman should have a very different outlook. I don't even like Superman, but even I found Man of Steel just painful for the way it handled the character. Moreso because you got glimpses of how well Cavill could do the character if he was allowed to do it properly.

*PSST* Man of Steel really isn't a dark movie or handled like a Batman film.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The Snyder Cut will be "better" if only because it will be artistically consistent. That doesn't mean it will be "good". One of the great oddities about Snyder in general is he's got all the skills to put together a great film. Shot composition, cinematography, even his themes are strongly worked into the narrative. He stumbles because too often he focuses on style and symbolism over narrative structure and his characters often come across as emotionally detached and lacking real purpose. It's possible the film will be something great, but there's really no telling. His strengths have always made for great trailers.

I agree with this. At this point, I think people are interested in seeing a coherent vision rather than a Frankenstein monster of a film. I don't know if it'll be good, but it'll be a lot different, and that makes it interesting at least.

I do wonder if any improvements that will be made from a coherent vision might end up undone after Snyder packs in more stuff...possibly to set up other HBO Max efforts as rumored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
Can we all not agree that, as insufferable as both those two were (and my love of the whole affair cratered the moment I realised they were the centre pieces of everything - seriously why would you make the two most annoying and uninteresting characters the focal point?), the later seasons of GoT had far more problems than just two actors lumped with two god-awful characters.

YES. Plenty of writing decisions that helped feed the problems with those characters.

 insaniak wrote:
I still find it somewhat amusing that the entire internet was complaining about Snyder's dark take on the DC universe...then Justice League came out, and everyone was suddenly demanding Snyder's version.

I assume that in 10 years, we're going to hear Star Wars fans talking about the genius of TLJ. Look at the rehabilitation the prequels have gotten over the last few years.

We already do. TLJ is a divisive movie, hated and loved by many. The one that is going to be harder to rehabilitate is RoS, as at best it is regarded as a "meh", while many just hate it.

 Blackie wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Emilia Clarke wasn't what ruined GoT.

That wasn't a problem of actors, but of writing.

I assume probably you say so because you didn't like how her storyline ended. IMHO they should have put her to that path way earlier, the mad queen twist is one of the best ideas in the more recent seasons of GoT, even if poorly developed.

I'm telling something different: I couldn't stand her character from day 1, not just season 8. Maybe because her storyline was never connected to all the other characters for a long time, but I've always considered the worst part of the show every moment she was on screen.

And the fact that I couldn't stand her pretty much in anything she's starred (with the exception of Me Before You) despite being very funny and interesting outside acting makes me think she's a very bad actress.

There is a very clear point roughly half way through the show when they fully stopped following the books and went all in on doing their own thing that the writing got CRAZY bad. And it was all down hill from there. For pretty much everyone. With some 2 maybe 3 exceptions every character who had depth in the earlier seasons got gutted of all their depth the longer the show went. Danny is a character that should have had a lot of depth. Being pulled in different directions before she asserts herself. But the writing never really managed to pull that after after the scene where she took the unsullied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

Spoiler:

 Compel wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I don't see how a Snyder cut is supposed to fix the major issue of the Justice League: That DC didn't want to take the time needed to establish the characters aside of Superman.

One of the funny things about that is that there's an animated movie that basically IS Justice League, and might even end up being *closer* to the final Snyder Cut than Josstice League...

It's not the BEST of movies out there, and I've got plenty of issues with some characterisation (Looking at you Diana), but Justice League: War basically did most things the live action movie did, but better, AND had to introduce not just more characters than JL, but the whole rebooted universe as well.

You'd watch the movie, you could work out exactly who Shazam was, Cyborg was, why you should care about them. You learned everything major about the Green Lanterns and Hal Jordan, through one conversation with Batman in a sewer.

Like I said, it wasn't a perfect movie by any means, but several of the characters had actual *arcs* in the story and it didn't need to be a 6 hour miniseries.

The New 52 was clearly Geoff John's attempt to replicate Marvel's success with the Ultimates. Make a comic line designed from the ground up to be the blueprints for direct film adaptations. The main problem is just that it got shoehorned on top of studio mandates built on the success of the Dark Knight films. The animated films managed to show the potential of those arcs by being pretty clean adaptations from a clean slate.

Whedon's JL is definitely a "worse than Hobbit" situation. My favorite part of the whole film is that his name appears on screen with the words "I tried" in the opening credits. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a film that starts with an apology from the creator before. It's the worst kind of hashed together studio mandated requirement laden messes out there and at no point really had a chance.

The Snyder Cut will be "better" if only because it will be artistically consistent. That doesn't mean it will be "good". One of the great oddities about Snyder in general is he's got all the skills to put together a great film. Shot composition, cinematography, even his themes are strongly worked into the narrative. He stumbles because too often he focuses on style and symbolism over narrative structure and his characters often come across as emotionally detached and lacking real purpose. It's possible the film will be something great, but there's really no telling. His strengths have always made for great trailers.

I don't agree with that assessment of the New 52. Geoff Johns has been on record of saying he doesn't like classic characters changing. "Keep the classic characters classic". So HIS green lanturn was Hal Jordan and he didn't like all that going mad, becoming paralax, eventually repenting and becoming the spectre stuff. The New 52 was him resestablishing a status quo that to him is an unchanging imutable status quo. Batman gets younger because old batman isn't status quo. Aquaman looses the beard and the hook hand and returns to an orange and green skin tight onesy because being awesome armored hook hand wasn't status quo.

Geoff Johns is pretty much everything wrong with DC comics and the constant reboots. Everytime a change makes a character adapt and change too much it's time to burn the whole universe down to reestablish the characters how he remembers them best.

Wheddon is a total hack.

JL Snyder Edition will be better like you say. The Shiniest Turd still goes in the toilet.

Well, this may be a bit off from what the OP intended, but sometimes an actor does something IRL that makes it hard for me to like a movie he's in.

Main case in point, Stephen Collins, in STTMP. Years after he did STTMP he was exposed as and confessed to being a molester.

Now it makes it a little hard to watch STTMP with him in it, and especially since he ends up transforming to a higher form of life and transcending the universe.

His career ended in 2014 with no roles past that data. One of his last roles was like tony stark's father in an avengers cartoon. I'm surprised his voice hasn't been replaced since it was a kid cartoon.

I did not burn my STTMP dvd like at least one guy said he did when they came out, but it does make it a little harder to watch it.

If it were technically and financially feasible to digitally replace him with another actor i'd be happy to see it done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I'll get the easy answer out of the way.

"I don't like sand, it's coarse, it's rough, it's irritating and it gets everywhere."

Develop a movie trilogy, completely screw up the writing and dialogue for the most important character, throughout *two* different actors.

A lot of films would be just... better, if it weren't for random comic relief sidekick that got shoehorned in. I guess Shortround is possibly one of the biggest examples of this.

Frankly willie, the helpless screaming object, made that move unbearable for me. I could stand the kid. Not her. But then again she was just one major bomblet in that wrongness clusterbomb of a movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
I didn't see a thread like this on here, so I guess I'll toss my hat in the ring since I need to get this off my chest...



I was explaining Escape From New York to a young soldier who had never seen it, so we made it a movie night thing with the unit. I had forgotten about how absolutely horrid the character Johnny was in that movie, and how absolutely awful the actor was. So much so that when the character's "arc resolved" his acting spoiled what should have been the most satisfying moment of the movie for me.

You mean the guy who had a bit part injecting snake with the bombs?

 Matt Swain wrote:
Well, this may be a bit off from what the OP intended, but sometimes an actor does something IRL that makes it hard for me to like a movie he's in.

Main case in point, Stephen Collins, in STTMP. Years after he did STTMP he was exposed as and confessed to being a molester.

Now it makes it a little hard to watch STTMP with him in it, and especially since he ends up transforming to a higher form of life and transcending the universe.

His career ended in 2014 with no roles past that data. One of his last roles was like tony stark's father in an avengers cartoon. I'm surprised his voice hasn't been replaced since it was a kid cartoon.

I did not burn my STTMP dvd like at least one guy said he did when they came out, but it does make it a little harder to watch it.

If it were technically and financially feasible to digitally replace him with another actor i'd be happy to see it done.

I can mostly leave a disconnect there. I mean, Thriller didn't stop being a good album after MJ's... behavioral issues, so I won't rule out a movie performance by someone who may have done something questionable.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I didn't see a thread like this on here, so I guess I'll toss my hat in the ring since I need to get this off my chest...



I was explaining Escape From New York to a young soldier who had never seen it, so we made it a movie night thing with the unit. I had forgotten about how absolutely horrid the character Johnny was in that movie, and how absolutely awful the actor was. So much so that when the character's "arc resolved" his acting spoiled what should have been the most satisfying moment of the movie for me.

You mean the guy who had a bit part injecting snake with the bombs?

Oh, no no no. That guy's an Oscar winning actor compared to whomever played Johnny. I'm talking about The Duke's second in command. The one that Brain stabs near the end of the movie.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Well, this may be a bit off from what the OP intended, but sometimes an actor does something IRL that makes it hard for me to like a movie he's in.

Main case in point, Stephen Collins, in STTMP. Years after he did STTMP he was exposed as and confessed to being a molester.

Now it makes it a little hard to watch STTMP with him in it, and especially since he ends up transforming to a higher form of life and transcending the universe.

His career ended in 2014 with no roles past that data. One of his last roles was like tony stark's father in an avengers cartoon. I'm surprised his voice hasn't been replaced since it was a kid cartoon.

I did not burn my STTMP dvd like at least one guy said he did when they came out, but it does make it a little harder to watch it.

If it were technically and financially feasible to digitally replace him with another actor i'd be happy to see it done.

I can mostly leave a disconnect there. I mean, Thriller didn't stop being a good album after MJ's... behavioral issues, so I won't rule out a movie performance by someone who may have done something questionable.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I didn't see a thread like this on here, so I guess I'll toss my hat in the ring since I need to get this off my chest...



I was explaining Escape From New York to a young soldier who had never seen it, so we made it a movie night thing with the unit. I had forgotten about how absolutely horrid the character Johnny was in that movie, and how absolutely awful the actor was. So much so that when the character's "arc resolved" his acting spoiled what should have been the most satisfying moment of the movie for me.

You mean the guy who had a bit part injecting snake with the bombs?

Oh, no no no. That guy's an Oscar winning actor compared to whomever played Johnny. I'm talking about The Duke's second in command. The one that Brain stabs near the end of the movie.

Oh yeah,I remember him. He was basically playing the definition of "Batgak insane" guy. I think that's all he was supposed to be, be batgak insane, the look, the talk, the act.

They filmed that bridge scene on a bridge i've been past many times...

He came off more like he was trying to be literally every member of Toe-cutter's gang simultaneously, he even tried to do Toe-cutter's hiss thingie.

 Ouze wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I still find it somewhat amusing that the entire internet was complaining about Snyder's dark take on the DC universe...then Justice League came out, and everyone was suddenly demanding Snyder's version.

I assume that in 10 years, we're going to hear Star Wars fans talking about the genius of TLJ. Look at the rehabilitation the prequels have gotten over the last few years.

Really who thinks the prequals are any good? and why?

TLJ is an absolute gak storm of every way not to make a movie, but the prequals are not much better.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I still find it somewhat amusing that the entire internet was complaining about Snyder's dark take on the DC universe...then Justice League came out, and everyone was suddenly demanding Snyder's version.

I assume that in 10 years, we're going to hear Star Wars fans talking about the genius of TLJ. Look at the rehabilitation the prequels have gotten over the last few years.

Really who thinks the prequals are any good? and why?

TLJ is an absolute gak storm of every way not to make a movie, but the prequals are not much better.

Yeah, usually the prequels are better known for their memes about sand and jar jar than anything else. It's only looked at fondly because it led to a whole explosion of additional material for the Clone Wars and new characters, including the amazing 2003 animated clone wars series followed by Filoni's version. RoTS is usually the only one people say they're an explicit fan of, outside of one-off moments like the fight between Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon and Darth Maul.

It's a seriously bad sign when all you get from the sequel trilogy is literal rehashes of ideas/designs from the OT. The Resistance has nothing that makes them stand out from the Rebel Alliance besides being more incompetent, and the First Order are basically just edgy Empire cosplayers.

 Grimskul wrote:
the First Order are basically just edgy Empire cosplayers.

That is, literally the point.

There's people that like the prequel films I suppose, but most praise you hear these days are just from people that enjoy the prequel setting due to the work put in by the Clone Wars cartoon.

Hayden Christensen was (for me at least) a big part of what ruined Episodes II and III of Star Wars.

There were other things: the age-gap between Anakin and Padmé in episode I, JarJar, the over-use of light sabers blah blah but seriously, Hayden Christensen was terrible as Anakin. Ruined it.

Loved him in jumpers, but he ruined Star Wars II and III for me :(

Pretty sure the Prequels killed Hayden's career too.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I still find it somewhat amusing that the entire internet was complaining about Snyder's dark take on the DC universe...then Justice League came out, and everyone was suddenly demanding Snyder's version.

I assume that in 10 years, we're going to hear Star Wars fans talking about the genius of TLJ. Look at the rehabilitation the prequels have gotten over the last few years.

Really who thinks the prequals are any good? and why?

TLJ is an absolute gak storm of every way not to make a movie, but the prequals are not much better.

When I've seen it (which isn't often), its mostly (but not all) younger folks on the internet who grew up with them or others where that's their first experience with Star Wars.
There were also a fair number of media websites that pulled a 'Well, actually...' and tried to extoll the virtues of the prequels as well, whether it was for click-bait and advertising revenue, but sometimes people are influenced by 'insiders' with 'real talk.'

And honestly it can be easy to nitpick the roughness of the original trilogy where they were building the effects by hand as they filmed, as opposed to the 'smoothness' of the prequels, and try to turn that into an argument about movie-making proficiency. Personally I think the latter look shallow and empty, because the prequels trades story and character for effects, but there are a lot of people out there now that are so used to digital effects that they look at it as the entire craft of movie-making.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
the First Order are basically just edgy Empire cosplayers.

That is, literally the point.

There's people that like the prequel films I suppose, but most praise you hear these days are just from people that enjoy the prequel setting due to the work put in by the Clone Wars cartoon.

I'm fine or up for it if they want them to be effectively the Neo-Nazis to the Third Reich that the Empire was, but you gotta have more substance or threat to them beyond being told they're a threat "just because".

Kylo Ren gets defeated by a complete novice and is an ineffective tantrum-prone villain that doesn't do anything but kill parental/mentor figures.

Hux is an incompetent opportunist/traitor.

Phasma is a one-note useless commander that sells out her faction to save her own skin. So much for the indoctrination for becoming a stormtrooper apparently. Also basically does nothing in the movies.

Snoke is just kinda there as a setpiece that dies after doing literally nothing before being invalidated by Palpatine's appearance in the next movie.

Like, it's fine if you have one or two incompetent villains that the heroes triumph over, but when you have an entire cast of villains whose role is to just to fail and do nothing, there's no threat at all in the movie or sense of tension.

I've always argued that Hux should have been the hypercompetent commander that is forced to work with Kylo Ren by Snoke to rein in Kylo's destructive impulsivity. Hux would be effectively the reason why the heroes are being outplayed tactics/strategy wise while Kylo dominates the physical role of contending in lightsaber duels against Rey. It would also make their competition for approval from Snoke more understandable if Kylo was valued for his force potential while Hux was favoured thanks to his strategic brilliance. This way you have an actual foil and balance for each character rather than making the First Order leadership act like a bunch of idiots who win because the plot demands it so.

Phasma should have been the main villain for Finn to have a reason to be in the movies, where she's there as a constant reminder of the trauma and brainwashing he suffered at the Stormtrooper Corps while she seems him as her only failure that she has to eliminate.

What would have really made the First Order more interesting was to put them in the position that the Rebellion was in. Acting as terrorist cells with Core World sympathizers would have made it way more plausible as to why the Resistance was made to counter them over just having the New Republic military handle them. It also ties in the Neo-Nazi theme a lot easier than flat out ruling their own worlds with an entire army on their own. Having them blend in with regular people and having a more guerilla Storm trooper style made of appropriated/scavenged Imperial gear would show a distinct design while still having a homage to the Empire they are drawn from.

As it is, the First Order fails both as a distinct faction and in terms of having any real characterization for its villains.

 Just Tony wrote:


Oh, no no no. That guy's an Oscar winning actor compared to whomever played Johnny. I'm talking about The Duke's second in command. The one that Brain stabs near the end of the movie.

Do you mean the punk blonde guy with that impossible hair cut? Character's called Romero, and in real life he was the father of Portia Doubleday, one of the protagonists of Mr Robot. I've always found him odd but not at the point of ruining the movie, which IMHO is close to absolute perfection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 XeonDragon wrote:
Hayden Christensen was (for me at least) a big part of what ruined Episodes II and III of Star Wars.

There were other things: the age-gap between Anakin and Padmé in episode I, JarJar, the over-use of light sabers blah blah but seriously, Hayden Christensen was terrible as Anakin. Ruined it.

Loved him in jumpers, but he ruined Star Wars II and III for me :(

Yeah, people complained about Jar Jar but Anakin was way more annoying. He was ok as a kid but in Ep II or III highly contributed to ruin the movies. Both character's and actor's fault I think.

 Grimskul wrote:

As it is, the First Order fails both as a distinct faction and in terms of having any real characterization for its villains.

I don't disagree, but I didn't feel this way after TLJ. Part of the reason I enjoy that one is just that it left the villains in an exciting place. Kylo had evolved into a real villain, succeeding where Vader had failed but still failing where Vader had failed. Largely unopposed but literally and figuratively haunted by his failings. He's left with infinite potential that's simply squandered in Rise. He could have ended as a truly great villain, but we got left with a tired and utterly vapid redemption arc(?) instead.

I know Snoke doesn't "do" anything, but his one appearance is one of my favorite scenes in the franchise and shows the Dark Side as so much more than "Jedi with sparky fingers". The complete overwhelming mental and telekinetic oppression he displays is the sort of thing I'd have LOVED from Palpatine in the prequels and I love that he's defeated by Kylo really "mastering" the Dark Side not by throwing bigger lightning but by understanding it well enough to manipulate it to Snoke's end. TLJ gives Kylo so much potential and its all sadly just squandered in Rise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 XeonDragon wrote:
Hayden Christensen was (for me at least) a big part of what ruined Episodes II and III of Star Wars.

There were other things: the age-gap between Anakin and Padmé in episode I, JarJar, the over-use of light sabers blah blah but seriously, Hayden Christensen was terrible as Anakin. Ruined it.

Loved him in jumpers, but he ruined Star Wars II and III for me :(

Yeah, people complained about Jar Jar but Anakin was way more annoying. He was ok as a kid but in Ep II or III highly contributed to ruin the movies. Both character's and actor's fault I think.

I'd have loved to have had Hayden in Ep1. It would have given him a chance to play the character outside of the stilted "lovestruck but emotionally repressed" role he got tossed into. Had he started in one as a character more in the template of Han, I think he would have had a much better chance of pulling it off. I'm not sure that anything could have saved 2 though. It's.... unbearable.

Ok so, since we are on TLJ, im going to say Rose actively ruined the movie, mainly for her characterization & role in her.
She was too quirky at first for me. But then she was made to fill the two roles already being filled in the previous movie. She was meant to be Finns anchor to the resistance, when that was meant to be Poes job, but they abandoned that for some reason(too gay?) and she was his Love interest, because they decided to go the Reylo route.
But worst is she exist to expouse some sort of "Resistance is just as bad as first order because.....they buy weapons too?" kinda nonsense.

I think the actress was fine. In fact she did pretty well with what she was given. But her character was written like a loopier Janeway.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok so, since we are on TLJ, im going to say Rose actively ruined the movie, mainly for her characterization & role in her.
She was too quirky at first for me. But then she was made to fill the two roles already being filled in the previous movie. She was meant to be Finns anchor to the resistance, when that was meant to be Poes job, but they abandoned that for some reason(too gay?) and she was his Love interest, because they decided to go the Reylo route.
But worst is she exist to expouse some sort of "Resistance is just as bad as first order because.....they buy weapons too?" kinda nonsense.

She is a terrible character but thats just TLJ - nothing is done well with all the plot, motivations and characters written in crayon by people who apparently did not care about either - or maybe they gave it to a bunch of chimps whilst they had lunch.

I very much doubt an actress at her level had any input into her character I would assume she was just happy to be in a massive budget film

I can;t think of a "good "character in TLJ - Rey has possibilities but is not great but everyone else - UGhhh.