|
Interestingly Saruman in the books is basically Hitler or any 20th century populist leader. He is way toned down in the movies. Conversely diners in America have never had 4 armed alien cooks, sentient robot servers, and Jedi customers. euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jan 6, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
Found this randomly on imgur, may be worth discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Interestingly Saruman in the books is basically Hitler or any 20th century populist leader. He is way toned down in the movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Conversely diners in America have never had 4 armed alien cooks, sentient robot servers, and Jedi customers. We can't be sure about that last one anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Violating a sense of verisimilitude in a film is as jarring as breaking the fourth wall. The trouble with the Diner was that it was too familiar and too obviously a reference to something outside the film. Lucas could have had Obi-Wan visit the diner-owner in a location that was aesthetically in line with Coruscant, like he did with the trashy neon nightclub. Instead, he sends Obi-Wan to an Earth diner. Someone up-thread compared it to Johnny Rockets and that's about right -- it looks more like a tacky, modern retro-50s restaurant than anything you see in Back to the Future or American Graffiti, let alone actual 1950s America. Exactly what is Dexter Jettster nostalgic for? Was Coruscant briefly the "1950s Planet" location for an original series Star Trek episode? Again, this isn't an actual universe we're looking at. Should Star Wars strive to be a realistic simulation of an alien world? Does any of the stuff you posted actually make it a bad movie? Like, does Funny Games suddenly become poo poo the second the remote control comes out? Was Moonrise Kingdom ruined by that weird narrator dude? Is any movie with a surreal element automatically terrible?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Not saying you dislike something and trying to coach it in the frame of 'oh well it was okay but..." is an age-old internet(and pre-internet) tactic. When you are saying the film has no thematic or creative value and making implications about the creators being bankrupt and uncaring then you do, in fact, dislike the film regardless of what you actually state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
I really don't like the field scene where he gets struck by lightning in Moonrise Kingdom. It seems completely extraneous and takes me out of the movie. I think it's in there to cut a little dramatic tension later, establish the kids is invulnerable so you won't worry about him doing in the hurricane and worry only about his emotional well being in a later scene, but that doesn't help at the time. It's just so much farther than all the other magical realism in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I always liked Dex's diner. I thought it was a neat reference to 50's diners but with a Star Wars spin. Also the shiny aesthetic of the PT vs. the dirty, used look of the OT is awesome. Things like Amidala's gaudy ship and the alien art deco look of Coruscant are supposed to contrast with the stark utilitarianism of the Empire and the beat-up look of the Rebels. All that shiny stuff is just a facade covering up the problems of the Republic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
greatn posted:Found this randomly on imgur, may be worth discussion. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Again, this isn't an actual universe we're looking at. Should Star Wars strive to be a realistic simulation of an alien world? Does any of the stuff you posted actually make it a bad movie? Like, does Funny Games suddenly become poo poo the second the remote control comes out? Was Moonrise Kingdom ruined by that weird narrator dude? Is any movie with a surreal element automatically terrible? quote:Verisimilitude, apart from being a long word that feels really nice to say, is about the appearance of reality or truth. This isn’t absolute reality, but the realty of the world in a film. When someone says, “That wasn’t realistic” about a film, what they probably mean is that it wasn’t realistic within the context of the film; verisimilitude (this is a good thing to correct someone on if you want a punch in the face). Fictional worlds rely on internal rules that ground the reader/audience in a sense of false reality. Breaking those rules betrays the falsity of what you are reading/watching and alienates the audience. That's great if you're Brecht but probably not what Lucas was going for with Star Wars. It's definitely not what I want from a Star Wars film. e. "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... was a retro-50s diner." unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
There are obviously just some very different, irreconcilable opinions going on here. Cnut laments the loss of vibrant creativity in Star Wars and then posts something that, to me, looks like something out of a DTV Scooby-Doo movie as evidence of that creativity. Meanwhile, people are posting things and praising them for their restraint and verisimilitude when, I'm sure, to him they look like a muddled brown mess, like something out of a Tactical Realism Shootmans VII game. The gap is so large that neither side can credit the other with genuine intentions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Is it possible to like all 7 star wars films and not have anything particularly negative to say about any of them??
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Violating a sense of verisimilitude in a film is as jarring as breaking the fourth wall. The trouble with the Diner was that it was too familiar and too obviously a reference to something outside the film. Lucas could have had Obi-Wan visit the diner-owner in a location that was aesthetically in line with Coruscant, like he did with the trashy neon nightclub. Instead, he sends Obi-Wan to an Earth diner. Someone up-thread compared it to Johnny Rockets and that's about right -- it looks more like a tacky, modern retro-50s restaurant than anything you see in Back to the Future or American Graffiti, let alone actual 1950s America. Exactly what is Dexter Jettster nostalgic for? Was Coruscant briefly the "1950s Planet" location for an original series Star Trek episode? Shanty and euphronius basically answered in the way I would've, but I can see where you're coming from. Neurolimal posted:PT interpretors hating TFA are made even funnier by the fact that a significant argument in favor of their readings was that it is better to consider the good in a movie than to force oneself into a negative, unenjoyable experience. I absolutely loved TFA. Why can someone not like TFA and the prequels? Is it only OK if one isn't at all critical of TFA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
homullus posted:Speaking of forcing opinion onto fact, in my anecdotal experience, less than 4% of the new generation "appreciating practical effects" can even tell the difference between practical effects and CG in Star Wars films. I, personally, believe that both CGI and practical effects have a place in movies, and even praised Maz as an example of a time where practical effects couldn't have been used for her design, and CGI was wisely used. My belief is more that CGI has been poorly used to export film costs to unionless countries in lieu of fairly paid artists (similar to the recent use of foreign actors to circumvent american acting guilds), resulting in lesser quality films. Your notion that the uppity new generation doesn't understand effects stem from anecdotal examples of practical effects with poor post-production work or CGI with practical bases being misidentified; you are the film equivalent of a middle manager watching a youtube video of a kid being confused by a betamax player. quote:They (you?) literally do not know what they (you?) are talking about, turning to one specious explanation after another for why the prequels are inferior. You actually don't need an excuse to dislike the prequels at all, but if you want some better ones, try: When any complaint about the prequels are handwaved away with "that was intentional! You aren't supposed to enjoy the movie!" Of course you will find people trying to delve into factual basis for their critique. It's a result of two contrasting opinions refusing to ignore each other and searching for an objective truth that supports their reading; don't pretend prequel defenders don't do this either, we've both seen enough SMG MsPaints to know otherwise. quote:Your other point is a good one: the fact that Sebulba walks on his hands doesn't make it a "good" creature design, and I wasn't implying it was. I was pointing out that insisting on the superiority of practical effects and privileging them in your production design will necessarily limit what you are capable of doing in a movie. You won't see as imaginative creature design in future Star Wars as long as the fan base is tilting at the CG windmill. And my original point was that limits do not necessarily create inferior work. My second point being that PT defenders are quick to dismiss positive aspects related to TFA that wouldn't have been ignored if the franchise didn't belong to Disney now; this film is just one more skirmish in a continuing battle of the worlds' most limp-wristed war against corporatism ever devised. On a positive note, that picture of most of the cantina designs brings a great number of intresting references and texts, and I intend to point some out, after breakfast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Do you understand the concept of verisimilitude? The diner doesn't break any rules of the "Star Wars" universe, though, because it's always been a hodge-podge of poo poo from the real world. As for your second point, now the problem has become "not what Lucas was going for". I mean poor guy I guess but how is that a problem for the film? Let's say it turns out that Brecht's cryogenically preserved head has been pumping out Star Wars scripts from George's basement, does that suddenly change the films?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
For me, Joe moviegoer, I think the prequels are movies with a lot of interesting ideas that are short on engaging characters (possibly by design), while TFA is a movie with engaging characters that is short on interesting ideas (also possibly by design).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
corn in the fridge posted:Is it possible to like all 7 star wars films and not have anything particularly negative to say about any of them?? I like all 7 Star Wars films, but I can criticize any of them without that compromising my ability to enjoy them. If anything this thread has increased my regard for all the movies, especially posts by Cnut and SMG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:There are obviously just some very different, irreconcilable opinions going on here. Cnut laments the loss of vibrant creativity in Star Wars and then posts something that, to me, looks like something out of a DTV Scooby-Doo movie as evidence of that creativity. Meanwhile, people are posting things and praising them for their restraint and verisimilitude when, I'm sure, to him they look like a muddled brown mess, like something out of a Tactical Realism Shootmans VII game. The gap is so large that neither side can credit the other with genuine intentions. While I think you're mostly right about this (and I genuinely think that it's a neat thing about art), it's mostly interesting to me that people who deign to defend the prequels are treated as if they must be contrarian; it's become such a "known" thing in internet/nerd/pop culture that the prequels are "bad" that to many people the enjoyment of them is laughable to a point where people not only defending but enjoying them must be taking the piss. Shanty posted:The diner doesn't break any rules of the "Star Wars" universe, though, because it's always been a hodge-podge of poo poo from the real world. Exactly. "Jumping through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy". I don't know why Trump Tutelage is giving that a pass presumably because it's in a movie he likes, even though it's also Star Wars. It is precisely as out of place as a 50's diner. Hell, a kid in 2016 is less likely to know dusting crops compared to the imagery of a 50's diner. Serf posted:I like all 7 Star Wars films, but I can criticize any of them without that compromising my ability to enjoy them. If anything this thread has increased my regard for all the movies, especially posts by Cnut and SMG. Totally agreed. Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
corn in the fridge posted:Is it possible to like all 7 star wars films and not have anything particularly negative to say about any of them?? No
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
corn in the fridge posted:Is it possible to like all 7 star wars films and not have anything particularly negative to say about any of them?? Of course. But some folks are afraid to like a movie. It's okay! Like all the movies!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
corn in the fridge posted:Is it possible to like all 7 star wars films and not have anything particularly negative to say about any of them?? Yes Jimmy, but stop stalling and go clean your room, I'm not going to ask you again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Do you understand the concept of verisimilitude? Elements are included in a film to make a particular statement or reflection, or to evoke a type of affect. Lucas is a very visual filmmaker and very plainly quoted one of his earlier films (which he very often does) to draw a comparison/contrast to it and it's story. Realizing that setting is a creative work, or calling attention to it's construction, isn't betraying the film. It's an element of the film. Star Wars is a fairy tale for children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Shanty posted:The diner doesn't break any rules of the "Star Wars" universe, though, because it's always been a hodge-podge of poo poo from the real world. Yeah, I really disliked that diner set but I don't see how its any less believable than anything else (for that exact reason).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This is all well and good, if you are willing to ignore the blatant fact that the vast majority of PT defenders have opposed the film and submitted poor, fact-sparse and strained readings, and a significant number of pro-OT posters have given elaborate and informative readings that are then handwaved away. It's very much a case of two groups segregating themselves to opposing tribes. TFA is poorly constructed regardless of whether you saw the PT or not. Everything about the Death Star shouldn't have been in the movie, and the time spent on Jakku felt like it was skimming a checklist to make sure all the proper elements are flashed on screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Shanty posted:The diner doesn't break any rules of the "Star Wars" universe, though, because it's always been a hodge-podge of poo poo from the real world. The only thing I can think of that comes close is also from the prequels, and it's the two commentators for the pod race, where again Lucas just slaps a Star Wars veneer on something that would otherwise be at home in Pitch Perfect or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Yeah, I really disliked that diner set but I don't see how its any less believable than anything else (for that exact reason). People are calling it the "50s diner" in this very thread. That's the problem with it. It makes you think of something outside the movie, unlike talking about Maz's castle or the Mos Eisley Cantina.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
corn in the fridge posted:Is it possible to like all 7 star wars films and not have anything particularly negative to say about any of them?? Personally, I liked the OT but do feel that there are a lot of poor filler moments that are easy to forget but still bog down the movie (ESB has the least of this, and is a genuine classic that deserves its reputation). I like the concepts of the PT and feel it serves well when referenced, but also that the films themselves range from pointless, to very dull, to excruciating, to at best "blatantly flawed"; similar to how it's easy to burn time reading intetesting concepts WRT Warhammer, but the actual material itself is a black pit of despair to read. I feel that TFA serves a great job of being a modern take on the OT that fondly homages, builds upon, and refines central themes, while also referencing the LT trilogy in a way that enriches the film for PT fans (when one is willing to give it a shot). It isn't perfect (it needs more breathing room, the starkiller is introduced too abruptly, we never become attached to the planets it blows up), but when compared to TPM and ANH it is an incredibly positive first step for the modern trilogy. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
DARPA posted:People are calling it the "50s diner" in this very thread. That's the problem with it. It makes you think of something outside the movie, unlike talking about Maz's castle or the Mos Eisley Cantina. Maz's castle is a Cambodian fortress with a bar inside. The Mos Eisley cantina is a dive bar next to the docks in 1960s Brooklyn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:While I think you're mostly right about this (and I genuinely think that it's a neat thing about art), it's mostly interesting to me that people who deign to defend the prequels are treated as if they must be contrarian; it's become such a "known" thing in internet/nerd/pop culture that the prequels are "bad" that to many people the enjoyment of them is laughable to a point where people not only defending but enjoying them must be taking the piss. They're really bad movies dude sorry. It's okay to like a bad movie though  it's just some of the reasons people like it are crazy in-depth examinations looking for hidden subtext and to some people that seems insane.Not exactly a good conversation starter "hey.. I really like clone wars, this cartoonish movie based on a flash gordon comic mimicking the style of a saturday morning serial, because of the deep meaning behind it. Let me show you some still shots and my mspaint diagrams." Not that there's anything wrong with that but I dunno how you could conclude they are good because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
DARPA posted:People are calling it the "50s diner" in this very thread. That's the problem with it. It makes you think of something outside the movie, unlike talking about Maz's castle or the Mos Eisley Cantina. Why is it OK for Star Wars to have a cantina--a thing we have on *gasp* EARTH?! but not a diner? hemale in pain posted:They're really bad movies dude sorry. It's okay to like a bad movie though Well, I could be wrong (feel free to check), but "good" and "bad" are subjective and not objective???? For instance, some people don't like coffee, which I find crazy. Coffee tastes good!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Why is it OK for Star Wars to have a cantina--a thing we have on *gasp* EARTH?! but not a diner? It's not sufficiently foreign enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
corn in the fridge posted:Is it possible to like all 7 star wars films and not have anything particularly negative to say about any of them?? There's enough Star Wars content out there for everyone to find something to dislike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Well, I could be wrong (feel free to check), but "good" and "bad" are subjective and not objective???? For instance, some people don't like coffee, which I find crazy. Coffee tastes good! Those people are loving WRONG dude. No sane human could dislike coffee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Those people are loving WRONG dude. No sane human could dislike coffee. fuckin' a 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I like all the movies but I'm not a Millennial so I still have the capacity for unironic enjoyment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Can we post/share theories? Especially good ones? Because I really like https://medium.com/@benostrower/rey-is-a-kenobi-362b5af09849#.dufr56i8i - but if that turns out to be true, that's a fairly big spoiler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not sufficiently foreign enough. I've been to Dex's Diner. I've been to dives and greasy spoons, and I've been to the mildly sinister local bar in a remote town that doubles as a community center, but I've never been to the Mos Eisley Cantina.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:TFA is poorly constructed regardless of whether you saw the PT or not. Everything about the Death Star shouldn't have been in the movie, and the time spent on Jakku felt like it was skimming a checklist to make sure all the proper elements are flashed on screen. I disagree. The death star was rushed, but it served as an interesting concept, and about as integral as the ANH death star or the TPM droid base. It's not necessary but it's not a glaring blemish that makes it more poirly constructed than the first episode of the other trilogies. Jakku itself is something many people here will find many reasons to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
DARPA posted:People are calling it the "50s diner" in this very thread. That's the problem with it. It makes you think of something outside the movie, unlike talking about Maz's castle or the Mos Eisley Cantina. The name of the diner is definitely not memorable, sure. Just look at the moniker of the Millennium Falcon for a perfect example from the OT- Why would a galaxy far away have falcons? It wouldn't, but does it really matter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
Red posted:Can we post/share theories? Especially good ones? That's possible, but I disagree with the assertion that it matters or really changes how we look at the series as a whole if it's true. It would be a giant "okay cool, whatever." It would just be another tie to the OT for the sake of having another tie to the OT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:28
|
|