|
To deviate from banging my head against the worlds' most stubborn wall/SMG's newest cargo cultist, I want to point out how awesome the alien designs are in those shots. The cyborg steed in particular is fantastic. They found a way to make even domesticated creatures look depressed and resolved.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Their lack of interesting interaction is in itself an interesting interaction. In accordance with Rey's life mirroring that of reality's youth, Jakku itself represents the uncaring routine-focused society. Nobody has time to save a droid, nobody has time to help each other, nobody has time for anybody. Actual american culture is represented better in this way than having Rey sit with other scavengers go "Boy, it sure is BORING around here! And whats the deal with these rations?!?" Jakku's theme, as you say, is having a lousy job. This means that there's no room for depicting community. Which is nonsensical, as there is more interactions and community on the Death Star. There's nothing interesting going on, until we actually have meaningful character interaction:   Tatooine starts off with extreme desolation that reflects the hoplessness of its characters. Jakku's "emptiness" reflects the emptiness of its story. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:
Maybe you weren't interested; but that does not make it objectively uninteresting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Maybe you weren't interested; but that does not make it objectively uninteresting. Actually it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Actually it does. So you're legitimately claiming to be the sole arbiter of "things that are interesting"? If forums poster BravestOfTheLamps doesn't find something interesting, it is objectively uninteresting and nobody should ever find it interesting? Just trying to clarify here...just how conceited are you??
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Just trying to clarify here...just how conceited are you?? The correct amount.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Jakku's "emptiness" reflects the emptiness of its story. Kind of like how the emptiness of your posts reflects the emptiness of your brain
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
The death star has the advantage of housing the dominant force of the privileged elite. You are whining that poor people aren't as interesting as jackboot thugs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:poor people aren't as interesting as jackboot thugs. I see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
I thought Rey having to barter food from her dad and eating alone in the carcass of the empire was a nice contrast to Lukes domestic scenes and show how different and similar they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
The maybe reveal that Simon Pegg is her foster parent makes question his motivation for capturing bb8 and really lines him up with Uncle Owen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I see. "No U" is a poor replacement for an argument, especially when said person has been arguing the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:I'm pretty sure they're referring to the ROTJ fight, as the New Hope battle is pretty lame and dull Nah, I was specifically referring to the New Hope Xwings at the death star scenes, which is one of my favourite sequences in all of cinema. There's real tension, the stakes are high and the movie culminates on the result of this moment. The ROTJ sequence, although having some great moments is too frantic and there's no real consequence to any of the pilots dying, since we've never seen them before. Not that it matters, since the whole thing is an aside / bookended by the amazing throne room sequence of Vader vs Luke, which is the focal point. TFA's 'starkiller' flight sequence was poor. It was just there for the sake of aping A New Hope and really felt inconsequential and tacky. Again however it was bookended by the excellent Han, Rey, Finn and Kylo sequences. Have to say though, the worst by far had to be the Episode 3 battle that opens the movie. It feels like Obi Wan and Anakin are talking to each other whilst sitting in office chairs in-between shots of spaceships unnecessarily spinning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The maybe reveal that Simon Pegg is her foster parent makes question his motivation for capturing bb8 and really lines him up with Uncle Owen. What if it's Uncle Owen in disguise?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:What if it's Uncle Owen in disguise? Pretty spry for a dead man
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Do you want to discuss Star Wars? Your entire argument boils down to, "there is absolutely one way and one way only to show anything ever in a movie." This couldn't be further from the truth and it's getting you hung up on enjoying what is actually a really well told and shot film. A handful of other posters in this thread are having the same problem, insisting that TFA could have only been done one very specific way and since it doesn't do it that way then it's a deeply flawed movie. TFA barely has any flaws though, there's really only personal preferences from people about how they would have liked the movie done instead. It's funny seeing this though, some of these same posters argued exactly what I am right now during the dark era of heavy prequel-apologizing discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Your entire argument boils down to, "there is absolutely one way and one way only to show anything ever in a movie." This is untrue. I said come in! posted:TFA barely has any flaws though, there's really only personal preferences from people about how they would have liked the movie done instead. TFA's has no room for great flaws, like it does not have room for great strengths. It's watered-down cinema. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Casting an unknown woman and black man is not really "watered down. " They took a lot of risks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's watered-down cinema. I'm sorry you believe that, you're wrong though. It takes a lot of basic themes from the previous movies but explores them in new creative ways that aren't just new to Star Wars but cinema in general. Rey and Finn are two of the most exciting characters in the franchise that are up there with Luke and Han Solo. Kylo Ren is just as memorable as Darth Vader while not falling for making him exactly like Darth Vader (this honestly surprised me). Snokes could have easily just been Palpatine but he's not that either. All of the new characters stand on their own and add to the Star Wars story, which is the tragic one gently caress up after another of the Skywalker family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Yeah Finn is completely brand new.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah Finn is completely brand new. He is a black stormtrooper who escapes from slavery, abuse, and brainwashing. Instead of just making him a pathetic shell of a human being, he is written as a character that is learning how to be human throughout the movie, he finds loyalty and friendship by the end, and there are hints that he is a jedi along with Rey. He is the most exciting character to me and I can't wait until the next movie to see more of him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Isometric Bacon posted:Nah, I was specifically referring to the New Hope Xwings at the death star scenes, which is one of my favourite sequences in all of cinema. There's real tension, the stakes are high and the movie culminates on the result of this moment. You have to admit that the first ~50 seconds of that ROTS scene is cool as hell though. The big setting sun, the huge proto Star Destroyer, the fighters racing along its length, the vertiginous reveal of the full battle. It does go on a little long, but it's so gleefully ambitious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2iMPsffXA The other scenes while they're still in space do get a little pointless. I think a big part of why the ANH trench run works so well is that you always have the context of the trench. It makes it very clear where everything is, and how fast everything is moving, without being confusing. The trench backdrop adds tension, because you've got what are basically static or slowly zooming/panning shots of the ship models, but the trench is always racing by - literal tension in the two main visual elements. This is duplicated somewhat in the other memorable space scenes - you've got the mostly static asteroids in ESB, and the big capital ships and DSII interior in ROTJ. In Star Wars, ships don't just fly. They fly past/around/through other stuff. So the start of the Episode III opening is quite strong, but when we're focused on the two ships in relation to each other (as Anakin rams Obi-Wan's fighter to destroy the droids), you lose the sense of speed and urgency. One of the weakest moments in TFA was the scenes of Poe dogfighting - shot from the ground. I get that they're trying to show how godlike and invincible he appears, to both the stormtroopers on the ground and Finn/Han/Chewie, but the action is almost too constrained by having to all fit in the narrow slice of sky we can see. The X wings and TIEs look slow. Poe lazily dispatches every ship that comes near him, and it's all a little too comprehensible and neat. This could have been fixed by having him be slightly less of an uber-ace, and only killing one TIE per supersonic pass through the FOV of the camera. But as it is that dogfighting looks more like a slow dance with TIEs dying in droves - like the critiques people have of the prequel Jedi vs battle droids. As an aside, the general feeling seems to be that Lucas is explicitly referencing WWII aerial combat with how the ships fight in Star Wars - that he's being deliberately anachronistic. Of course you've got the stories of him cutting WWII film with the actor closeups in to convey the tone of what he wanted. And the ships bank, shoot guns (not missiles), and fight at close range. But that was actually still pretty valid in the mid 1970s, when Star Wars was conceptualized and made. The latest big air battles would have been in Vietnam, and in the Arab-Israeli wars of the late 60s/early 70s. In both cases dogfighting at close range with guns was something that happened frequently. And it existed alongside supersonic fighters and radar guided/heat seeking missiles (which missed 80-90% of the time). So obviously he wanted the feeling of WWII combat, but I think you could make a fair case that 60s/70s air combat was still pretty close to that too - and to what we see in the films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Casting an unknown woman and black man is not really "watered down. " That's only risk for marketing. The movie themselves aren't risky. They're two previous movies combined, in fact. I said come in! posted:It takes a lot of basic themes from the previous movies but explores them in new creative ways that aren't just new to Star Wars but cinema in general. Such as? Also Finn becomes hilarious when you realise he's just a more serious C3PO/Jar Jar Binks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Yeah but the audiences in 1970 grew up with fighter ace movies. The audience today grew up with videogames.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's only risk for marketing. The characters are in the movie not just the marketing materials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The characters are in the movie not just the marketing materials. How does that make the movie risky instead of just making it harder to market? If TFA was taking risks... well, a risk would be showing that the fascist military are the good guys. Or Luke Skywalker turning into a dragon that flies through space. Those are risks, because you're making massive gamble with how audiences and critics will react. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's only risk for marketing. This is not how marketing works. Rey wasn't even marketed outside of one toy, all of the companies that got the license to make products based on TFA ignored Rey and were reluctant to make anything at all for Finn. They all assumed Kylo Ren would actually be the character that fans wanted toys of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Bravest of the Lamps is Kylo Ren and SMG is Darth Vader.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:51
|
|
bruvs be4 luvs
|
And they were right? Black Series figures had Finn as the peg warmer since they came out. Kylo was always instantly sold out. You could find Rey a ton too at the start but she went away later because they never repacked her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:This is not how marketing works. Rey wasn't even marketed outside of one toy, all of the companies that got the license to make products based on TFA ignored Rey and were reluctant to make anything at all for Finn. They all assumed Kylo Ren would actually be the character that fans wanted toys of. A lesson on the truism that nothing about being wealthy and powerful stops you from being very, very dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:This is not how marketing works. Rey wasn't even marketed outside of one toy, all of the companies that got the license to make products based on TFA ignored Rey and were reluctant to make anything at all for Finn. They all assumed Kylo Ren would actually be the character that fans wanted toys of. So what you're saying is that there were even less risks involved. Also, what about TFA is new to Star Wars and cinema in general?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOp04pxm7ro
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah but the audiences in 1970 grew up with fighter ace movies. The audience today grew up with videogames. Now that you mention it, that's exactly what those scenes look like - in game footage from BF3 or Halo or something. Artificially slow aircraft that turn like cars. To be fair, the "chase plane" shots of dogfighting in TFA are fine. They probably could have been better with more focus on a strong environmental context, but oh well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:So what you're saying is that there were even less risks involved. No, i'm saying nothing about writing TFA was made with marketing the movie in mind. LucasFilm doesn't control that, they just license the material out to other companies. This is how its always been. You're accusing Lucasfilm of making a movie purely for marketing purposes and that isn't true at all. You're just throwing your poo poo at a wall and seeing what sticks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:You're accusing Lucasfilm of making a movie purely for marketing purposes Where did I do that? And what about TFA is new to Star Wars and to cinema in general?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:And what about TFA is new to Star Wars and to cinema in general? Read the thread, watch the movie, have an open mind. I'm not responding to this troll bait. I know you're going to fire back with how it's an innocent question and you just want to discuss Star Wars and everyone is unfairly ganging up on you, but time and time again you just revert back to "this wasn't done how I would have personally liked it, so therefore it's not valid." Everyone at this point see's right through you and has called you out on it. I have to give you credit for being persistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
quote:That's not what I'm saying. You are lying about what I am saying, and I demand that you apologize for doing so, and that you apologize for these cheap rhetorical tricks that fool no one and nobody and do nothing but hamper discussion, and that you apologize for having the gall to say that people don't want to discuss Star Wars after pulling that little maneuver. I am not being ironic. I am actually taking your words entirely at face value, instead of pretending they're meant in a friendly, jovial kind of way where meaningful discussion can happen. I am using dangerous nega-irony, damping it out with the occasional ironic statement like this sentence. I don't know why you'd think the ancient literary device of using words from other languages for emphasis or expression is a kind of irony either. Oh well, de gustibus non est disputandum. This is nothing more or less than dirty nerdism you are engaging in. This is more nerdism. Do you disagree, nerdling? No, they want to discuss it, just not with you. Buddy, it's abundantly clear from how much self-loathing you pour into your intellectual pornography about the dang nerds and their dang fandoms that your life is already something out of the Eighth Circle of Hell. Nor are you a dragon. Now, there's also some real Freudian poo poo going down here, what with you focusing on how I'm "slaying the dragon" when you are wedded to a single definition of a phrase that is notoriously difficult to pin down, and instead of conceding at any point, valiantly constructing a psychic breastwork of phrases like "your writing style is atrocious" and "you don't want to discuss the real issues". Well, yes, I don't want to engage in a discussion where you define the terms, because you are bad at defining terms, and secondarily a raging, smarmy rear end in a top hat without one iota of self-reflection. Like, imagine if an actual discussion started happening, and then you started wantonly and criminally squawking about people "reinventing the Oxford English Dictionary". It would be terrible for everyone involved, ne c'est pas? Youre really annoying and making all the other woke dudes in this thread look bad If you're not willing to engage with criticism of what you're saying without throwing a tantrum, you are not engaging in critical thinking and you are not having a discussion. You are howling into a void, lecturing, ranting, on a jeremiad- but you are not discussing. Sorry. When you're reduced to repeating catchphrases and memes like a parrot, you've really lost it all, mentally speaking. This is surface-level stuff, mes amis. lol movies are hard to understand. Imitating the Angry Video Game Nerd does not make you an esteemed critic capable of significant critical thought. Negativity does not equal intelligence. Nobody wants to see you diarrhea dump on a film. try again guy. Or don't. Quiet bad! Only doing things! Your posts are loving boring. You make all the other TFA critics look brilliant by comparison at the same time that you're dragging the reputation of TFA critics down to the gutter...this is only a good thing...and for some reason you think these troll posts will faze the same people who occupy a forum with SMG and withstood Tarantino-gate. It's exquisite. It sounds like you just wanna watch Luke again, but this movie is about Rey instead. Sorry buddy. You're really bad at movie ideas. Why are you against originality? Perhaps you should try to engage with films better, because you don't seem to be very good at it. I understand. Children have short attention spans. Wow. You're not even trying. Your opinions have so far only proven worthwhile in the sense that we all need only do the opposite of whatever you suggest in order to create a good film. Hahahah, okay, so you're actually just a troll or a goddamn idiot. It's really unfortunate for you to have this emprically inaccurate opinion that borders on manic delusion, but hopefully it's not too late to fix this for you. In your vapidity and obtuseness, you've somehow brushed off these depictions as mere sentimentality instead of succinct developments of important character background, which just goes to irrefutably cement my initial assessment of you, which is that you haven't engaged with this film very well, and nothing you've said since has changed that diagnosis in the slightest. You really need to cut this poo poo out.I get it, you desperately want to be CineD's next big gimmick poster. That or you took a semester of film school and are absolutely convinced that you're right about everything. Sure, here's a post you missed while you were busy fueling your ego: You are behaving like a petulant child. I mean, I know that it tells you nothing because you haven't engaged with the film, but try thinking about it anyway. I can only glean from this the fact that you really want to discuss Star Wars, but lack the means to do so in any intelligent capacity. Just trying to clarify here...just how conceited are you?? Kind of like how the emptiness of your posts reflects the emptiness of your brain. Read the thread, watch the movie, have an open mind. I'm not responding to this troll bait. I know you're going to fire back with how it's an innocent question and you just want to discuss Star Wars and everyone is unfairly ganging up on you, but time and time again you just revert back to "this wasn't done how I would have personally liked it, so therefore it's not valid." Everyone at this point see's right through you and has called you out on it. I have to give you credit for being persistent.  I wish you'd spent all this effort on discussing Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bcRCCg01I
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Abrams gave us a Wrath of Khan remake without a submarines-in-space battle, and a Star Wars IV remake without a good death star assault. Does he even understand space franchises!?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Rabelais D posted:a good death star assault. In fairness, there hasn't been one of these for almost 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 16:46
|
|
