|
Bongo Bill posted:Obi-Wan speaks to Rey, calling out her name. That's because Rey has mutant dark side powers that are totally different. Instead of simply imagining the ghosts of people she cares about, she can effectively time-travel.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:When you're shooting cheap and dirty, like a soap opera, reality show or laugh-track sitcom, you shoot multi-camera. One is the master, which is usually a two-shot in the case of dialog scenes. Then you have an over-the-shoulder POV for each character so you can cut back and forth between their lines. It's very efficient, because you can get all your coverage in one take and move on. This is how Lucas has always shot scenes. He had two camera operators filming two different angles for most of the scenes in THX 1138, and he pretty much exclusively filmed American Graffiti this way. Same goes for Star Wars. He usually just shot a scene once and then moved on. He attributes it to his "documentary style" of film-making. If the prequels are objectively terrible movies because Lucas made liberal use of multi-cam set-ups, then all his movies must be similarly objectively terrible. But most people today seem to think THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars turned out okay. It's just his preferred style. Multi-cam setups aren't objectively terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:If the prequels are objectively terrible movies because Lucas made liberal use of multi-cam set-ups, then all his movies must be similarly objectively terrible. But most people today seem to think THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars turned out okay. It's just his preferred style. Multi-cam setups aren't objectively terrible. I love the response to this argument, because it is quite literally "well, I liked those other movies, so it matters more for movies I don't like". You could legitimately argue that the problem with the PT is that they're shot in color, using that same logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:See, this is the type of attitude I'm talking about when I say the issue is not with people that bring up the PT. My issue is more with the movies than the people wanting to bring it up. What I loved about TFA was that character interactions felt a lot more organic, everyone on screen at least gave the appearance of believing in what they were doing and the action was presented in a more exciting fashion. Outside of some Starkiller segments, most action is pretty drat intimate in comparison to the prequel battles. Its typically a few protagonists fighting a few enemies at a time, which allows there to be more focus on the character conflict being acted out. Even when it is a smaller fight, there's more emphasis on fancy Dragonball Z moves, which kinda lowers the impact when everyone is presented like Superman. In TFA people get pretty hosed up, in TPM Qui-Gon says this poo poo "shouldn't be a problem". You never got a "DID YOU SEE THAT!?" kind of moment with Finn. Not only is he blowing up some laser turrets, he's striking back at his oppressor for the first time in his life. When The Phantom Menace tries to do that, you get "Now this...is podracing". There's no love there, the interactions are treated like a chore. There's a lot of love flowing through TFA, which is why I'm fine with them going a bit overboard with callbacks and references on the soft reboot. SuperMechaGodzilla posted:The guy he meets there berates him, tells him to unlearn what he has learned, tells him to abandon the rebels Pretty sure he didn't want Luke falling into a painfully obvious trap by going after Han, Leia and Chewie. computer parts posted:
I'd probably be down with a Noir PI take on the prequels, where Qui-Gon, Yoda and Obi-Wan notice that something is amiss and are searching for clues to uncover the Palpatine Conspiracy to the public before its too late. You could probably use a lot of the same plot beats, too. Filthy Casual fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:
Let it go. You're never going to convince the 95% of the rest of us that these movies are good. It's been a thousand pages and I've been convinced there were some storylines that were interesting to talk about and some nuances that might have been missed. But good and very good are not words that appropriately describe the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I have lit for scenes to be shot from two angles before. It is not some impossible feat. So have I. It's actually very easy. Much easier, in fact, than single camera, where you have to flip the room for the reverse shot. I think you may have missed my point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:This is how Lucas has always shot scenes. He had two camera operators filming two different angles for most of the scenes in THX 1138, and he pretty much exclusively filmed American Graffiti this way. Same goes for Star Wars. He usually just shot a scene once and then moved on. He attributes it to his "documentary style" of film-making. If THX, Graffiti or the original trilogy had actually looked like soap operas, you wouldn't hear me or anyone else making this complaint. Plenty of features use multi-cam for expensive, hard-to-repeat special effects or stunt shots. That's not what I'm talking about here. They don't tend to do it for sequentially edited dialogue because it usually looks like crap. The prequel dialogue scenes look like a soap opera because they were lit and blocked and composed like a soap opera. That just isn't true of Lucas' previous films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Filthy Casual posted:Pretty sure he didn't want Luke falling into a painfully obvious trap by going after Han, Leia and Chewie.. But Yoda doesn't know who those people are, or what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:But Yoda doesn't know who those people are, or what they're doing. I got the feeling Yoda knows all about Luke's friends and the possibility that Luke could save them. All of Luke's visions I feel like Yoda has already seen. "They were in pain." "It is the future you see."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:IIRC a stat I read a while ago most people who attempt to commit suicide and survive almost immediately regret it. The Jedi finally do something about it, and they do it dressed like Darth Vader. What I'm getting at is, my point is that Luke is conflicted about the choice Vader gives him, because while symbolically killing himself he changes mind, starts dressing like him, and starts fighting slavery. Something the Republic he was fighting to restore never did (Luckily Vader helped destroy that crap), and apparently still wasn't doing until they got Han.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:But Yoda doesn't know who those people are, or what they're doing. He wouldn't really be Yoda if he didn't have some inkling. He may not know Han/Chewie/Lando etc, but he definitely knew about Darth Vader and Leia ("there is another").
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Let it go. You're never going to convince the 95% of the rest of us that these movies are good. It's been a thousand pages and I've been convinced there were some storylines that were interesting to talk about and some nuances that might have been missed. The goal is not to convince anyone. The goal is simply to write truthfully and accurately. As this recent line of discussion has shown, people are ignoring the same factors in Empire Strike Back that make the prequels good: Filthy Casual posted:Pretty sure he didn't want Luke falling into a painfully obvious trap by going after Han, Leia and Chewie. In this view, Yoda's teachings don't mean anything. Yoda simply wanted to prevent Luke's death, in a rational, utilitarian way. There's no concept of Yoda standing for some sort of spirituality that Luke feels is missing in his life, but that he ultimately rejects because it turns a blind eye to torture. There's also no sense that Han, Leia and Chewbacca stand for anything either. Luke simply wants to prevent their deaths, and does not stand for any sort of populist idealism or whatever. His political stances, morals and ethics don't mean anything. Luke is just rationally self-interested. 'Do the main characters die in the end - yes/no? Do they perform optimally in a tactical scenario?' No wonder people are absurdly worried about spoilers. But this all involves actively ignoring cinematography, editing, the actors' performances, etc. These are the same factors that are ignored when 'discussing' the prequels. You see people saying that "Force Awakens is bleh, but it has great characters. Also Kylo Ren is simply insane and his actions don't mean anything. Driver's performance doesn't mean anything. Leia's actions don't mean anything. The dialogue doesn't mean anything. The heroes don't stand for anything...." So what's so great about the characters then? Star Wars fans are not paying attention to the films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:If THX, Graffiti or the original trilogy had actually looked like soap operas, you wouldn't hear me or anyone else making this complaint. Plenty of features use multi-cam for expensive, hard-to-repeat special effects or stunt shots. That's not what I'm talking about here. They don't tend to do it for sequentially edited dialogue because it usually looks like crap. That's exactly what Lucas used it for, though. He used it for almost everything. quote:The prequel dialogue scenes look like a soap opera because they were lit and blocked and composed like a soap opera. That just isn't true of Lucas' previous films. I don't think you've watched the original Star Wars in a while. It's the same way. If anything, the prequels' camera work is more inventive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So what's so great about the characters then? They're likable and fun to watch, an important aspect of adventure films. You root for the good guys because they're cool and try to save people, you want to see the bad guys lose because they do awful poo poo like kill their dad and blow up planets. Have fun with your nihilistic head canon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Filthy Casual posted:They're likable and fun to watch, an important aspect of adventure films. You root for the good guys because they're cool and try to save people, you want to see the bad guys lose because they do awful poo poo like kill their dad and blow up planets. Have fun with your nihilistic head canon. In Force Awakens, the Resistance only managed to save themselves - and the 'coolest' character is the antagonist. But, more to the point: what makes the resistance 'good' besides being vaguely not-fascist? They're movies, not friendship simulators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In Force Awakens, the Resistance only managed to save themselves - and the 'coolest' character is the antagonist. Finn and BB-8 are the antagonists?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In Force Awakens, the Resistance only managed to save themselves - and the 'coolest' character is the antagonist. What makes the Rebels good besides not blowing up planets and murdering farm folk? The First Order are essentially the aggressors in this conflict. The war between Rebellion and Empire comes to an end, Luke disappears, the First Order arises and takes over a portion of the galaxy. In retaliation for the Resistance... existing, basically, they make a pre-emptive strike against an organization they're not even at war with, the Republic, and destroy an entire populated star system. I think they're the baddies. And by destroying Starkiller Base they not only save themselves, but eliminate a weapon of galactic genocide, which has to count in the "plus" column somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Finn and BB-8 are the antagonists? No, they aren't. Maxwell Lord posted:What makes the Rebels good besides not blowing up planets and murdering farm folk? Right, so there's nothing specifically good about the Resistance. They are defined entirely by not being the fascists. Personally, I don't see 'not being fascist' as an accomplishment. I wouldn't put it on my resume. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
No, but fighting against the fascists is generally a creditable thing. One of the themes of the original film is that you do have to push yourself to not only not be evil but to stand up against evil- to not just say "there's nothing I can do about it." Rey goes from being a bystander to being the opposition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Right, so there's nothing specifically good about the Resistance. They are defined entirely by not being the fascists. No, they're defined entirely by fighting against the fascists. In every movie I've ever seen, that's more than enough to be considered "the good guys". Why do they need to spend screen time expounding on their ideology when it's not central to the immediate conflict? I'd rather be shown, not told.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:No, they're defined entirely by fighting against the fascists. In every movie I've ever seen, that's more than enough to be considered "the good guys". Why do they need to spend screen time expounding on their ideology when it's not central to the immediate conflict? I'd rather be shown, not told. I didn't say anything about exposition replacing visuals. My point is that, as with James Cameron's Avatar (a much better film, as it happens), we are presented with a pseudo-opposition - in this case, between fascism and feudalism - that forecloses any possibility of a radical solution. You're being misled with a fake, unsatisfactory ending that will presumably be fixed when they make the last movie in 2020 or whatever. Note the Deus Ex Machina fissure that prevents Rey from simply murdering Kylo and ending the series.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:No, they're defined entirely by fighting against the fascists. In every movie I've ever seen, that's more than enough to be considered "the good guys". Why do they need to spend screen time expounding on their ideology when it's not central to the immediate conflict? I'd rather be shown, not told. Lots of people fight against fascists. Most famously, the US and USSR fought against fascists. This does not mean they're identical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Isn't that the scheme, though? ANH ends with the "fake" satisfying conclusion of the Death Star being blown up, TPM has a happy ending where the bad guy wins, obviously things are going to get more complex-er. But at the same time the film shows that key first step in the journey of choosing to stand and fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Lots of people fight against fascists. Most famously, the US and USSR fought against fascists. This does not mean they're identical. True but if the worst that can be said against the Resistance is they address Leia with royal nomenclature- I can't invest much in this because it's identical to some of the shallower Marxist "the Rebels are the bad guys because they're really feudalists because it's Princess Leia!!" readings that fail to examine the symbol beyond "monarchy = bad". Leia is not an autocrat in behavior, in the OT or in The Force Awakens- even as Resistance general there's no real case of her saying "You will do this because I say so", the final attack is planned as a group effort based on the sharing of knowledge. Her title is there simply because, well, let's face it, "saving the princess" sounds more like a fairy tale than "saving the senator." It's not George Lucas' fault that the feudal imagery is cooler than the imagery of responsible governorship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:True but if the worst that can be said against the Resistance is they address Leia with royal nomenclature- I can't invest much in this because it's identical to some of the shallower Marxist "the Rebels are the bad guys because they're really feudalists because it's Princess Leia!!" readings that fail to examine the symbol beyond "monarchy = bad". Leia is not an autocrat in behavior, in the OT or in The Force Awakens- even as Resistance general there's no real case of her saying "You will do this because I say so", the final attack is planned as a group effort based on the sharing of knowledge. Her title is there simply because, well, let's face it, "saving the princess" sounds more like a fairy tale than "saving the senator." It's not George Lucas' fault that the feudal imagery is cooler than the imagery of responsible governorship. I think that while literally "The Rebels are trying to bring back the Monarchy" is not all that well supported, it is an established fact that they're trying to (re)establish the Republic (i.e., the "Good Old Days") and in doing so defeat the Empire (i.e., the "poo poo Present Days"). That sort of nostalgia is very dangerous, precisely because you get a Trump style of "Make On a side note, the use of titles is very interesting. We've already covered Leia, but Snoke is the one not really mentioned. In many post-rebellion eras, there's often someone who tries to usurp the title of Monarch after the previous one is disposed. For example, Yuan Shikai titled himself Emperor soon after the Qing fell. With Snoke, he's a "Supreme Leader", not an Emperor. This brings about  comparisons, but I think the more interesting parallel is Franco. Snoke wants to rally his Nationalists to defeat the Republic supporters, and all without taking the title of King for himself. For this parallel to continue, there would have to be an offspring of Palpatine waiting in the wings somewhere. Perhaps Kylo is this metaphorical offspring, since he's the grandson of Darth Vader, whose father figure was Palpatine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Lots of people fight against fascists. Most famously, the US and USSR fought against fascists. This does not mean they're identical. Sure, which leaves a lot of questions as to the motivations of the Resistance and the Republic. We got a new, 2 hour film. I'm glad we got to spend a lot of time with the new characters. I'm especially glad we didn't spend that time talking about politics. Whatever you think of them, we had enough of that with the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I didn't say anything about exposition replacing visuals. The fissure is not a Deus Ex Machina. It is the literal interpretation of the fissure opened between siblings by the younger daring to reject the older's wisdom and her audacity in showing greater prowess than he. He wanted to teach her, master her, and instead she showed that he is inferior. She opened the rift in what he hoped would be their relationship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Also the planet is collapsing. Fissures aren't uncommon in those circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
It is also incredibly likely that Luke himself will end up addressing how gung-ho Rey was with the idea of killing Kylo since, you know, that was his own entire character arc. A deus ex machina is a crutch used to resolve a conflict that the writer couldn't find a way to resolve naturally. There were a thousand established ways to forcefully keep Rey from killing Ren. The fissure was used explicitly for imagery and grandiosity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
I find the events of this space opera based on classic mythic structure to be wholly implausible and it really affects my ability to enjoy this film 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think that while literally "The Rebels are trying to bring back the Monarchy" is not all that well supported, it is an established fact that they're trying to (re)establish the Republic (i.e., the "Good Old Days") and in doing so defeat the Empire (i.e., the "poo poo Present Days"). That sort of nostalgia is very dangerous, precisely because you get a Trump style of "Make True, but sometimes you do end up with an arrangement where the good days were better than the present- say, if you were in Spain after the Spanish Civil War ended, or in Cambodia after we let Pol Pot move in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Lunatic Pathos posted:The fissure is not a Deus Ex Machina. It is the literal interpretation of the fissure opened between siblings by the younger daring to reject the older's wisdom and her audacity in showing greater prowess than he. He wanted to teach her, master her, and instead she showed that he is inferior. She opened the rift in what he hoped would be their relationship. Are we just assuming Ren and Rae are siblings now? Have we ruled out cousins at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Lunatic Pathos posted:The fissure is not a Deus Ex Machina. It is the literal interpretation of the fissure opened between siblings by the younger daring to reject the older's wisdom and her audacity in showing greater prowess than he. He wanted to teach her, master her, and instead she showed that he is inferior. She opened the rift in what he hoped would be their relationship. It could also be a rift between the Skywalker family and the Kenobi family 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Are we just assuming Ren and Rae are siblings now? Have we ruled out cousins at this point? Ren is 29-30 and Rey is 19 during TFA; so they can't be twins. They could still be brother and sister, but neither Han nor Leia says anything to Rey about being her parents, so I don't think it's likely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:True, but sometimes you do end up with an arrangement where the good days were better than the present- say, if you were in Spain after the Spanish Civil War ended, or in Cambodia after we let Pol Pot move in. And other times you get Libya, which might've been better before the dictator but it's still pretty fragile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Are we just assuming Ren and Rae are siblings now? Have we ruled out cousins at this point? Random SA poster is totally assuming that, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Ren is 29-30 and Rey is 19 during TFA; so they can't be twins. They could still be brother and sister, but neither Han nor Leia says anything to Rey about being her parents, so I don't think it's likely. Who said anything about twins?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty clear Rey was Luke's girl. At least I thought that's what the flashback scene was trying to convey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Butt Ghost posted:I thought it was pretty clear Rey was Luke's girl. At least I thought that's what the flashback scene was trying to convey. I'm not sure what that scene was trying to convey, it was pretty hectic and even on my second viewing I don't think I got everything that was going on. I did see Luke "deactivating" R2-D2, presumably after giving him most of the secret map, which is something I missed the first time around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
kiimo posted:Who said anything about twins? Just addressing one of the more common theories I've seen tossed out. And, if you read the rest of my post before "calling me out", I go on to talk about non-twin sibling possibility as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:27
|
|