|
Red posted:Who's the 'regular' guy we can identify with? Who's the character that's mystified and awed by the Jedi, that gives us an idea of how the galaxy sees the powerful Jedi council/knights? Is it just Anakin, being passed over? It's Jar Jar/Child Anakin, the two characters who have their entire lives screwed up just by the Jedi passing through town. Filthy Casual posted:Incidentally, after all those Dexter Jettster's diner debates, I walked away from that scene kinda liking it. It felt like the only time Obi-Wan established a genuine relationship with someone, but it was mostly that dude owing him a favor. It also had a nice hardboiled PI vibe to it. Part of the purpose of the diner scene is to show us Obi-wan having a genuine friendship with someone, to better distinguish his dysfunction father/brother/mentor/friend relationship with Anakin.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:This is the first Star Wars that feels like it's built to generate fan theories though. I guess it's hard to judge retroactively, but what were any open-ended mysteries that any of the prior movies have established? We didn't know who Luke's dad was in ANH, but we weren't led to believe it was important, and everything in the prequels unfolded fairly predictably. We always knew Palatine was the big bad. I guess the closest is Yoda's "there is another" aside in Empire, and that ended up being kind of a red herring. In any event, we always knew at least by the end of each movie what all of the characters wanted. Vader's motivations shifted, but you never left a movie feeling like he was holding something back from you. That's not by accident. JJ Abrams produced/wrote/directed (alongside Damon Lindelof) LOST, which created an audience through creating tons of "mysteries" and teases, some of which paid off, and some of which didn't. But it made sure to create enough open-ended plotlines to keep people guessing, and coming back. Lindelof did really well with it in Prometheus, in my opinion. We'll see how the next 2 films pan out for Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:I really think it was a mistake to save his motives for the sequel, we have no idea what went on between him and Luke and why he fell out with his family, it makes his patricide alot less meaningful when we don't know the reasons behind it. Did it leave you feeling confused? Angry? Did it make you want to know why a "good kid" from a "good family" would forsake everything and turn to the dark side? The movie evoked exactly the reaction from you as real life school shootings do from most people. Kylo Ren is frightening because we don't know the why. Of course, one can only hope that his eventual motives will be more compelling than "was picked on" and "played too many video games". Black Bones posted:That would be incredibly boring, like the film dump levels of boring. How would that be boring? It would cut out a lot of the stupid "No, you're wrong!!!" bullshit. Mechafunkzilla posted:It's insanely egotistical to think that anyone gives a poo poo if you "liked" or "disliked" a film without actually talking about why. When did I say no one should discuss why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Not all movies need to have a Han Solo. Not all movies need to have an outsider figure. Fiction Is Not Lego Blocks. It's proven that the Star Wars franchise works well with a Han Solo/outsider/loveable rogue type though. The prequels would arguably have been more a lot more fun amidst all the political intrigue if it included that character archetype for the audience to invest in throughout all 3 films imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:16
|
|
teagone posted:It's proven that the Star Wars franchise works well with a Han Solo/outsider/loveable rogue type though. The prequels would arguably have been more a lot more fun amidst all the political intrigue if it included that character archetype for the audience to invest in throughout all 3 films imo. The Force/fiction doesn't work that way! Han Solo works well because his story plays off of the rest of the characters and their stories. Just throwing a character like him in would produce an array of dissonant notes, because the whole "altruism versus selfishness" thing isn't a big part of the PT. So what's really being said here is that we want the PT to be a rerun of the OT.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
We did need an everyman character in the prequels to counter-act these weird space monks. Anakin could've been, but he's way too weird and narcissistic. He reminds me of Dennis Reynolds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
nm: link didn't work for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itkl7cHcX_E&feature=youtu.be&t=1100 ok this version seems like it works. Dance Fight 66 from the third auralnauts video (pro click) NecroMonster fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So what's really being said here is that we want the PT to be a rerun of the OT. Yes. It worked for 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
teagone posted:Yes. It worked for As much as I loved TFA, I don't want the next two to be just like that. It was an action packed thrill ride that reignited interest in my favorite franchise and brought back the elements that I hold most dear: larger than life, memorable characters with genuine interactions and kickass dogfights/sword battles that don't shove too much poo poo in your face that its hard to focus on the central character conflict being played out. That said, it would have benefited from a few more subdued talking/world building scenes (i.e. Luke's improvised training with Obi-Wan on the Falcon) and the Starkiller deal was a little much, but at least fun to watch and gave everyone a chance to do something. They've set the stage pretty drat well for VIII, there is a whole lot of personal conflict boiling over after how VII ended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:TFA is fun, but it also feels cruel when you think about it. The end of RoTJ brings the 6 film cycle to a hopeful close that by throwing away his lightsaber, loving his enemy, and kind of reinventing the Jedi. Darth Vader kills Palpatine and dies, the old Jedi and old Sith are gone. The Force has been balance, and maybe the destructive conflict between Jedi/Sith that has plagued the galaxy for like 10,000 years is finally over. Maybe there's a reason the Skywalker family is so important. This is my biggest concern about these sequels, to be honest. I enjoyed TFA a lot, and I don't think what you're saying is a sure thing, but if they don't eventually honor the characters and payoffs of the original trilogy it really will feel the way you detail in this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
I feel like we need to have a thread to discuss how to define quality in a movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Even if it's part of a series, a movie should make sense on its own. If you want to reveal things in a sequel that portray the previous movie in new light that's fine, but it's kind of bad film making to raise big questions about character motivation if you're not ready to answer those questions yet. There are a lot of things Kylo Ren killing his father should leave us feeling, but the overwhelming sensation was "What has led him to a point that he feels he has to do this? When Han caresses his face as if to say 'I forgive you', what is he forgiving him for, besides the obvious?" There's not going to be any great reveal that compensates for how diminished that moment was by robbing it of context. Is this really a thing people were confused by? I thought that scene was a bit over-explained, if anything. Kylo killed his father because he loved him, and his feelings were pulling him away from the Dark Side. The conflict is tearing him apart, and he wants to snuff out his own light by killing his father. He explicitly states this when he asks for Han's permission to kill him. This is also a direct reflection of Darth Vader's internal conflict throughout RotJ, where he was ultimately "corrupted" by Luke's love and forgiveness. We don't know why Kylo idolizes Darth Vader and wants to complete his legacy, nor what exactly caused him to turn to the Dark side in the first place, but we don't need to know that to understand his motivations in that scene, which are spelled out for us, and brought home with some pretty overwrought symbology. I also just sat down and properly watched the Prequel trilogy for the first time. The Phantom Menace was a bit of a drag (though it did generously feature the amazing Sheev), but I thoroughly enjoyed the other two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Not all movies need to have a Han Solo. Not all movies need to have an outsider figure. Fiction Is Not Lego Blocks. True, but I'm relaying one reason why I prefer the OT to the PT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Filthy Casual posted:As much as I loved TFA, I don't want the next two to be just like that. It was an action packed thrill ride that reignited interest in my favorite franchise and brought back the elements that I hold most dear: larger than life, memorable characters with genuine interactions and kickass dogfights/sword battles that don't shove too much poo poo in your face that its hard to focus on the central character conflict being played out. That said, it would have benefited from a few more subdued talking/world building scenes (i.e. Luke's improvised training with Obi-Wan on the Falcon) and the Starkiller deal was a little much, but at least fun to watch and gave everyone a chance to do something. They seriously overcorrected for the backlash the PT got. As I see things, the whole Starkiller subplot was introduced just as a device to get rid of all the political shenanigans that could be happening in the background and make the universe smaller so they could focus on character development in the next film. With no Republic, no Senators, most of the First Order forces wiped out all you can do is follow Kylo and Rey along their journeys with the Force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
They'll probably have you know emergency elections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I feel like we need to have a thread to discuss how to define quality in a movie. That would be cool, if only to see how many goons have hosed up ideas on that topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
If hyperspace calculations are so important and need to be exact, why is the hyperdrive controller a lever?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I feel like we need to have a thread to discuss how to define quality in a movie. A very common (and really boring) intuition is for people to argue that film quality is entirely subjective and all that matters is whether you like it or not. Getting beyond this is the first step.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:A very common (and really boring) intuition is for people to argue that film quality is entirely subjective and all that matters is whether you like it or not. Yeah exactly that's what I'm thinking. I mean goons like anime so why they would think that intuition is true is baffling. Also genres and historical context are important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If the majority of viewers believe that the correct reading is "this was a mistake or poorly thought out" then for the most part that is the correct reading. Why? Since when were we taking a vote or rendering a verdict? What is the point of going with any final word, be it one critic's reading or the will of the masses? Why not just let multiple readings co-exist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:While this isn't entirely unreasonable, it also sounds like refusing to give audiences any responsibility for interpreting and understanding art/their own feelings. I think we should encourage audiences to try harder, not allow them to reject anything but the most obvious and familiar readings. Certainly, but there's a balance. Naturally it's impossible to please everyone, because what's obvious to one person won't be obvious to another, since everyone has different life experiences that they'll recognize on screen. And then apart from that, different people have different ideas about how much analysis they want to have to do to fully grasp a movie. But I do feel (not dogmatically, and not for every type of movie) that there's a certain bare minimum threshold of "telling" that is required to tell a story well. It's not easy to define that threshold, so I guess that's part of what discussion is for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Even if it's part of a series, a movie should make sense on its own. If you want to reveal things in a sequel that portray the previous movie in new light that's fine, but it's kind of bad film making to raise big questions about character motivation if you're not ready to answer those questions yet. There are a lot of things Kylo Ren killing his father should leave us feeling, but the overwhelming sensation was "What has led him to a point that he feels he has to do this? When Han caresses his face as if to say 'I forgive you', what is he forgiving him for, besides the obvious?" There's not going to be any great reveal that compensates for how diminished that moment was by robbing it of context. From a page back, but isn't this pretty analogous to Vader in a New Hope though? We don't know anything about his connection to Obi Wan or why he turned against him other than "he was a pupil of mine, before he turned to evil." We don't know what made him turn, beyond "he was seduced by the dark side of the Force." We don't know why he listens to Tarkin, or how Vader came to serve the Emperor. And yet Vader (spoilering this since it kind of hints at what Frackie Robinson spoilered killing Obi Wan is still impactful despite the lack of the type of context we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
hiddenriverninja posted:If hyperspace calculations are so important and need to be exact, why is the hyperdrive controller a lever? "I don’t know! You just flip switches!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:A very common (and really boring) intuition is for people to argue that film quality is entirely subjective and all that matters is whether you like it or not. The second step, of course, is recognizing that just because there are objective elements to the craft of filmmaking does not mean it's possible for a film to be objectively good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Why not just let multiple readings co-exist? Because we are communicating - and that is a terrifying prospect to many. We are currently at this level of meta-debate ("is it even possible to talk about Star Wars?) because fans are trying desperately to not talk about Star Wars. It may be counter-intuitive, but you can see it happening right in front of you. People are posting in order to not-communicate. This is the very definition of bad faith - saying 'it's just my opinion' when the authentic stance would be to accept the terrifying burden of actually forming an opinion. Maxwell Lord posted:just because there are objective elements to the craft of filmmaking does not mean it's possible for a film to be objectively good or bad. What I write is true, and - in saying 'but it's not objective' - you are demonstrating that you are not interested in truth. That's bullshit at best, and active deceit at worst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What I write is true, and - in saying 'but it's not objective' - you are demonstrating that you are not interested in truth. That's bullshit at best, and active deceit at worst. A work of art exists in the objective sense- we're all talking about the same films here- but at the same time it is made to be the subject of individual evaluation. The Star Wars movies were made to be watched, and inevitably the watchers are going to filter the objective experience of the film through the filters of their own perception and expectation. This does not mean that there can be no truth gleaned from it, it just means that there's no way we can appeal to an outside authority- be it the author, the critics, or consensus- to render a final verdict. We have to work it out on our own. And sometimes we have to stand in the face of everyone else telling us we're wrong. And yet it moves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:We don't know why Kylo idolizes Darth Vader and wants to complete his legacy, nor what exactly caused him to turn to the Dark side in the first place, but we don't need to know that to understand his motivations in that scene, which are spelled out for us, and brought home with some pretty overwrought symbology. Hulk Krogan posted:From a page back, but isn't this pretty analogous to Vader in a New Hope though? We don't know anything about his connection to Obi Wan or why he turned against him other than "he was a pupil of mine, before he turned to evil." We don't know what made him turn, beyond "he was seduced by the dark side of the Force." We don't know why he listens to Tarkin, or how Vader came to serve the Emperor. And yet Vader (spoilering this since it kind of hints at what Frackie Robinson spoilered killing Obi Wan is still impactful despite the lack of the type of context we're talking about here. We were told just enough about Vader's background that we had a vague idea of who he was and where he came from, but not enough that it really raised more questions. Obi -Wan taught him, but for all we know at that point he was a bad seed from the start. He's just a bad guy behind a mask, we never see his face and the movie never prompts us to wonder how he feels about what he's doing. Ren is a cypher- knowing his parents, it seems that it would have taken something massive, maybe not to fall to the dark side, but certainly to commit himself to dismantling everything his family ever worked for. Even when Anakin fell he didn't switch sides in the war. When the movie shows us that he still possesses shreds of humanity, and of love for his family, it begs the question of what it is that has torn them apart. That question looms so large that it overshadows everything he does and makes him impossible to relate to. By deferring this information to future episodes they're putting the cart before the horse. Big reveals are meant to heighten existing drama, they aren't drama in and of themselves. General Dog fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If the majority of viewers believe that the correct reading is "this was a mistake or poorly thought out" then for the most part that is the correct reading. You can have a different personal reading and that one would also be correct, but viewer interpretation trumps authorial intent. Don't seek the dissent-halting Author's Intent, seek the persuasive "words what make them agree with mine" From a while back, but I wonder how this thought process squares with artists in other mediums who only got respect/critical acclaim/popularity after they died, or at least well after the work was done and published? Consider this funny PT-bashing-like contemporary review of Moby Dick, which had a mixed-at-best critical reception, sold poorly, and didn't reach a wide audience (and status as a masterpiece) until well after Melville died: New York United States Magazine and Democratic Review, January 1852 posted:Mr. Melville is evidently trying to ascertain how far the public will consent to be imposed upon. He is gauging, at once, our gullibilty and our patience. Having written one or two passable extravagancies, he has considered himself privileged to produce as many more as he pleases, increasingly exaggerated and increasingly dull.... I'm not saying the PT is a masterpiece in waiting, but doesn't this explode your idea of validation by the (contemporary) masses? Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:From a while back, but I wonder how this thought process squares with artists in other mediums who only got respect/critical acclaim/popularity after they died, or at least well after the work was done and published? Consider this PT-bashing-like contemporary review of Moby Dick, which had a mixed-at-best critical reception, sold poorly, and didn't reach a wide audience (and status as a masterpiece) until well after he died: Yeah lots of stuff is like that. The Great Gatsby was hated on release too (and I believe Fitzgerald died before its reputation recovered), same with It's a Wonderful Life, and Shakespeare is the 16th century version of Michael Bay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:We were told just enough about Vader's background that we had a vague idea of who he was and where he came from, but not enough that it really raised more questions. Obi -Wan taught him, but for all we know at that point he was a bad seed from the start. He's just a bad guy behind a mask, we never see his face and the movie never prompts us to wonder how he feels about what he's doing. I don't know about that. When he senses Obi Wan's presence on the Death Star, the delivery of that "a presence I haven't felt since..." line and the way he just turns and stalks off implies there's a history there. When they finally meet, Vader seems almost eager; both in his body language and in the way he says, in almost a boasting manner "Now, I am the master. Putting aside what we know from having seen the subsequent OT films and the prequels, and imaging we're seeing A New Hope for the first time again, it sounds like some poo poo has gone down between these guys that we're not privy too. We know Vader is Obi Wan's former student. We know he killed Luke's father. We can see that he is driven to confront Obi Wan and prove his superiority by killing him. What we don't know is the "why" for any of this. We are presented Vader as he is when we enter the story, and the film ends without clarifying any of that background. Kylo Ren is the same - the only difference is we are given the familial connection early on instead of having it hidden from us until the next film. quote:Ren is a cypher- knowing his parents, it seems that it would have taken something massive, maybe not to fall to the dark side, but certainly to commit himself to dismantling everything his family ever worked for. Even when Anakin fell he didn't switch sides in the war. When the movie shows us that he still possesses shreds of humanity, and of love for his family, it begs the question of what it is that has torn them apart. That question looms so large that it overshadows everything he does and makes him impossible to relate to. I guess this just made the moment more impactful for me. Like someone else said, it evokes a similar feeling to hearing about a school shooting or an awful murder on the news, and I think that feeling of trying to grapple with a senseless act is only enhanced by the identity of the victim. Hulk Krogan fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The second step, of course, is recognizing that just because there are objective elements to the craft of filmmaking does not mean it's possible for a film to be objectively good or bad. Maybe, but it's worth trying and arguing about something other than tastes which will inevitably vary. Positive claims about art are just more fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Maybe, but it's worth trying and arguing about something other than tastes which will inevitably vary. Positive claims about art are just more fun. True. I'm just trying to steer the conversation away from "isn't the likely explanation that it just sucks?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:I don't know about that. When he senses Obi Wan's presence on the Death Star, the delivery of that "a presence I haven't felt since..." line and the way he just turns and stalks off implies there's a history there. When they finally meet, Vader seems almost eager; both in his body language and in the way he says, in almost a boasting manner "Now, I am the master. Putting aside what we know from having seen the subsequent OT films and the prequels, and imaging we're seeing A New Hope for the first time again, it sounds like some poo poo has gone down between these guys that we're not privy too. I mean we know they've fought before ("Now I am the Master" et all), and Obi-Wan already said how Vader killed Anakin, so it's reasonable to assume that the two of them fought after that. With Kylo, we know that he was probably good in some ways (at least enough not to be suspicious), then turned bad, murdered a whole bunch of people, and then joined with Snoke. We don't know why he went bad, or if he was just like his grandfather (as his hair suggests). We don't know who the Knights of Ren are, and we don't know who Snoke really is. Remember that in ANH we don't know that much about the Emperor. I think Vader is described as his right hand man on loan to Tarkin but that's about it. Snoke is set up as much more of an active bad guy more quickly than Palpatine was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Is there a goon hive mind agreed upon watch order for the movies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Tots posted:Is there a goon hive mind agreed upon watch order for the movies? 4561237 Order of release is always the correct answer to these questions. Anyone that says anything else is a liar trying to deceive you from being able to form your own opinions and thoughts. Do not trust them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
I agree with the direction. I actually support people going "Hey, maybe this just sucks?" The problem is that often people don't provide reasons besides I didn't like this, therefore it is bad which is probably the most vulgar opinion you can have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
On top of that, I really dislike "I didn't like it because of this, this and that" "BUT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAYYY!".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
My questions about Kylo Ren boil down to this: if doesn't genuinely hate his parents, which he doesn't seem to, then I don't understand why he's doing what he's doing. Not just killing Han, I mean any of it. Trying to erase their legacy. This isn't to say that there can't be a satisfactory answer to that question, I'm just saying that it's conspicuously left unanswered in TFA. Unlike Anakin, whose alliance with Palpatine is ultimately one of convenience, Ren seems to be a zealot. He's a true believer in something, but in what is anybody's guess from what we're shown.
General Dog fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:4561237 Real world release order is the best way for a new viewer, but once you are familiar with the saga, I would recommend numerical order.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted:On top of that, I really dislike "I didn't like it because of this, this and that" "BUT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAYYY!".  At times it appears some people think Lucas is some sort of brilliantly subversive Andy Kaufman-esque puppet master, where every perceived failing of the films is, in reality, Lucas' smirking, secret joke on his fans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:22
|
|