|
It doesn't matter whether the movie is good or bad, or how much it resembles the OT vs. PT. Ultimately you'll find any rhetorical way to defend RO because it has to conform to your theory that George Lucas is poo poo. You've proven that quite readily that that's the only critical rubric you can bring to bear on these films.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Oh, so can you just write your review right now? I'm sure there are many other avid fans other than myself that would love to read it. Something about this post really got me. Funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Given the massive success of the Clone Wars and Reoverbels cartoons (and the fact that said "overwhelmingly negative" trilogy were all multi-hundred million dollar blockbusters) I'd give Disney even odds. because you prequelities enjoy everything that star wars is not: no mysticism, only science and technobabble ala midichlorians, 2000 word explanations of Vader's armor, how many turbolasers the port side of a star destroyer has no adventure, only trade deals no good characters and finally sterile cgi environments
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:It doesn't matter whether the movie is good or bad, or how much it resembles the OT vs. PT. Ultimately you'll find any rhetorical way to defend RO because it has to conform to your theory that George Lucas is poo poo. You've proven that quite readily that that's the only critical rubric you can bring to bear on these films. there are literally dozens of hours of analysis and thousands of words by people who know what they're talking about literally deconstructing every scene in the prequels over the past 10 years I don't give a gently caress about explaining to you why the prequels are bad because in the end OT good, prequels bad for reasons that have been discussed to death for a decade i could and have tried to explain my position but none of you really give a poo poo you'll still just "selectively hear" what I'm saying and build strawmen. Only people who actually have good opinions and convincing arguments about the prequels are SMG and Cnut inb4 Serf quotes one of my posts and calls me Tezzor in a condescending shitpost
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Do you really think Disney will ever release a movie with any close association to a trilogy with an overwhelmingly negative public perception? Do you think Disney wants to emulate hot garbage? Unfortunately for Star Wars fans, I think Disney will shy away from close association with the PT, but is as enthusiastic about emulating hot garbage as any corporation looking to make money. It's going to be heroes dealing with Imperial super-weapons in the Roman-numeral episodes and backward-gazing prequels-but-not-those-prequels-goodness-no in the "Star Wars Stories" from this day forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
homullus posted:Unfortunately for Star Wars fans, I think Disney will shy away from close association with the PT, but is as enthusiastic about emulating hot garbage as any corporation looking to make money. It's going to be heroes dealing with Imperial super-weapons in the Roman-numeral episodes and backward-gazing prequels-but-not-those-prequels-goodness-no in the "Star Wars Stories" from this day forward. No, its extremely fortunate for Star Wars fans because the prequels are a massive and jarring departure from everything that makes Star Wars such a cultural icon, revered and reified by nerds everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:there are literally dozens of hours of analysis and thousands of words by people who know what they're talking about literally deconstructing every scene in the prequels over the past 10 years I don't give a gently caress about explaining to you why the prequels are bad because in the end OT good, prequels bad for reasons that have been discussed to death for a decade I like all six Star Wars movies. How do you reconcile that? And as far our "selective hearing" regarding your facile treatment of the material, you literally just laid out these points: "no mysticism, only science and technobabble ala midichlorians, 2000 word explanations of Vader's armor, how many turbolasers the port side of a star destroyer has" Literally every single one of these points is a blatant falsehood. What you're describing is two different over-lapping circles of fans. There are people who love the story of the PT and don't know anything about "how many turbolasers" because that stuff doesn't appear in the films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The total gross for the prequels in entirety, minus merch, was 1.13 billion approximately. CelticPredator posted:I guess I think this is kinda of bullshit. Not totally, but just kind of. Mostly because look, when you're making a product that is something MILLIONS of people not just adore, but devote a large part of their lives to it, not keeping any of the fans in mind is pretty dang dumb. And what I mean by that isn't "Oh well uh, people like uh..Boba Fett, so here's uh...Boba Fett." It's "People fell in love with the great characters, their relationships, and the adventures they had together and we should focus on that aspect. " You can argue that TFA is hack poo poo, or safe, but it did bring back the fundamental thing that people enjoyed about Star Wars. The characters. People loving LOVE Rey and BB8. Rey used to be the hardest Star Wars figure to find once the film came out. Now Rey is everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:because you prequelities enjoy everything that star wars is not: There were plenty of good characters, adventures, and physical sets in the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
There are many, many Star Wars fans who disagree with you, Phi230.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
By the way, are we using popularity as a measure of quality, which is stupid? Are are we using it to measure some nebulous idea of the filmmakers fulfilling an ethical duty to the fans, which is borderline insane? Just checking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:By the way, are we using popularity as a measure of quality, which is stupid? Are are we using it to measure some nebulous idea of the filmmakers fulfilling an ethical duty to the fans, which is borderline insane? Just checking. ask yourself why most people and star wars fans don't enjoy the prequels its because they're bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I already know I'm going to like RO because it's OT material, directed by a good director, written by good writers, and produced by a mega-corporation that will not allow failure (Disney) Just to be clear, you are suggesting that Disney cannot and has not ever made a straight up bad movie and that if a "mega-corporation" pours enough money into a project it cannot fail?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Just to be clear, you are suggesting that Disney cannot and has not ever made a straight up bad movie and that if a "mega-corporation" pours enough money into a project it cannot fail? which disney film, produced or otherwise, has failed in recent memory? cars 2 comes to mind, but what others?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Zoran posted:There are many, many Star Wars fans who disagree with you, Phi230. and there are many more who agree with me
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
jivjov posted:There were plenty of good characters, adventures, and physical sets in the prequels. still sterile. Sterility is not a look people want in star wars
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:ask yourself why most people and star wars fans don't enjoy the prequels
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Phi230 is like my 90 year old grandmother, I go see her and every single time I bring up the same political bullshit that I know gets her worked up and we debate for a while and then I get bored and go home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:which disney film, produced or otherwise, has failed in recent memory? I don't really know what you mean. Failed commercially? Gotten bad reviews? Been lovely in my opinion? I'm totally unclear on if you mean that Disney won't allow it to fail financially or like, somehow artistically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I like all six Star Wars movies. How do you reconcile that? And as far our "selective hearing" regarding your facile treatment of the material, you literally just laid out these points: you must be a huge dumbo because how can you like 2 things, supposedly under the same umbrella, that are diometrically opposed to one another lived in vs. sterile mystic vs. scientific archetypes vs. soap opera characters show vs. tell
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I don't really know what you mean. Failed commercially? Gotten bad reviews? Been lovely in my opinion? I'm totally unclear on if you mean that Disney won't allow it to fail financially or like, somehow artistically? a film truly fails when people and critics don't like it even critics and audiences panned the prequels, when large franchise films have inflated review scores
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:which disney film, produced or otherwise, has failed in recent memory? I think at the very bottom of this issue is that you view your relationship to the screen as one between consumer and manufacturer. For you it's a commercial transaction in which you pay money and get exactly what you're asking for (this is how we end up with creatively bankrupt nonsense like Starkiller Base). You hate to be challenged, and are completely risk-averse. You are Disney's dream-customer. But what you're looking for is entertainment, not art. Those two things often overlap, but you'd much prefer to be entertained than provoked. It says a lot about you and goes a long way in describing why your attitude in this thread can be described as child-like. You berate "prequelites" for caring about the dumb minutiae of the EU and yet for you, any deviation from the ur-text is a betrayal of your contract with the producers. It's banal. You have a lot more common with the "no black stormtroopers!" crew than you might admit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
with such a large franchise like Star Wars, due to its reification, anything other than perfection is failure tbh. We can see this with the new Ghostbusters, Harry Potter thing, and the prequels. This is problematic I admit
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:which disney film, produced or otherwise, has failed in recent memory? Lone Ranger. Tomorrowland. John Carter
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Rogue One will be the best Star Wars movie ever made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I'm still pretty okay with the new movies just largely ignoring the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I think at the very bottom of this issue is that you view your relationship to the screen as one between consumer and manufacturer. For you it's a commercial transaction in which you pay money and get exactly what you're asking for (this is how we end up with creatively bankrupt nonsense like Starkiller Base). You hate to be challenged, and are completely risk-averse. You are Disney's dream-customer. But what you're looking for is entertainment, not art. Those two things often overlap, but you'd much prefer to be entertained than provoked. It says a lot about you and goes a long way in describing why your attitude in this thread can be described as child-like. I'm not watching Star Wars to get an arthouse film. If I want to exercise my artistic gland I'll go see movies I expect to be higher forms of art, such, in recent memory, The VVitch, Arrival, Green Room, or even older films such as Sicario, Battle for Algiers, Burn!, etc... I watch Star Wars with the explicit expectation I'm getting a high-budget, quality adventure pulp serial from which I will be entertained. Not every movie has to be a thought provoking, deep masterpiece of art which is your biggest assumption and failure Even Renaissance artists made poo poo just to be low-brow popularity like Venus of Urbino which was considered straight up low-brow pornography in its day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Yes, exactly. You're looking to be placated, like a child. You're also somehow suggesting that Green Room is of higher artistic merit than A New Hope which is weird and that pulp and art can't coexist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Yes, exactly. You're looking to be placated, like a child. So having certain expectations about certain products is asking to be placated? That's pretty hosed dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Yes, exactly. You're looking to be placated, like a child. As a child, I found Episode 2 very placating. It almost put me to sleep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Yes, exactly. You're looking to be placated, like a child. I'm not suggesting that, my implication was that I see movies like that without the expectation of cheap spectacle and entertainment that I get from Marvel movies or Star Wars movies
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:a film truly fails when people and critics don't like it The list of great films that were panned by critics and ignored by audiences is incredibly long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:So having certain expectations about certain products is asking to be placated? That's pretty hosed dude I guess I just don't go to the theater hoping to see the same magic trick performed over and over. It's different approaches to art. Enjoy your 4th Death Star film. You rail against completely made-up aspects of the PT like "2000 word explanations of Vader's armor" and yet here you are over the moon about the fact that you now get a 2-hour exegesis on 2 lines from the ANH crawl. You're incoherent. Jewmanji fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I guess I just don't go to the theater hoping to see the same magic trick performed over and over. It's different approaches to art. Enjoy your 4th Death Star film. having massive Star-Trek esque sperg explanations on minutia are NOT equivalent to telling a story of an event pretty critical to ANH so uh gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:having massive Star-Trek esque sperg explanations on minutia are NOT equivalent to telling a story of an event pretty critical to ANH so uh gently caress yourself Please cite an example of "Star-Trek esque sperg explanations on minutia" in the prequels, whatever that means. Edit: Also "an event critical to ANH" lol. Do you think George Lucas decided to open the movie in media res because he couldn't make RO at the time, or was it an artistic decision? Again, one of the most common complaints about the prequels is the oft-quoted Oswaltism about "I don't give a poo poo where the stuff I love comes from, I just love the stuff I love", and yet here you are wanting to have the entire myth spelled out for you because your imagination is garbage. Jewmanji fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with approaching the Star Wars films as modern-day Flash Gordon adventures- that's obviously what Lucas was doing to start with. But I think it's odd to say that in contrast to the prequels, which have so many clear ties to that same material, and indeed somewhat similar flaws. (Dialogue and acting were never the strong points of, say, your average Harryhausen flick. Take a look at the romantic dialogue Kerwin Matthews and Cathy Crosby have to struggle with in Seventh Voyage of Sinbad.) The major risk of the new Star Wars films is they're all being made by massive SW fans and thus run the chance of being more homages to Star Wars itself than to the source material- a copy of a copy as it were. TFA gets close to this at times (the "eh, we gotta have X Wings and TIE fighters" mentality, and yeah that one decision still bugs me) but does have scenes and elements which call back to pure-strain space opera (Han smuggling space monsters, everything Poe Dameron, etc.) Granted I'm expecting Rogue One to focus more on war movie tropes than serial ones. Which is also fair since the original Star Wars takes so much from The Dam Busters and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Please cite an example of "Star-Trek esque sperg explanations on minutia" in the prequels, whatever that means. You threw him a softball, now all he's gotta do is play the midiclorians card! Check and mate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:having massive Star-Trek esque sperg explanations on minutia are NOT equivalent to telling a story of an event pretty critical to ANH so uh gently caress yourself completely missing the point AND throwing in a needless autism joke. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:still sterile. Sterility is not a look people want in star wars I expect a state of the art cloning facility to look sterile as hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:No, its extremely fortunate for Star Wars fans because the prequels are a massive and jarring departure from everything that makes Star Wars such a cultural icon, revered and reified by nerds everywhere. It's extremely unfortunate for Star Wars fans because a movie could deal with prequel events and characters in ways that are not like the PT (c.f. the TV shows), but Disney dares not invest that amount of money in it until the OT well is truly dry. Episode-movie superweapons, OT gap-fill Star Wars Stories (Rogue One, a Han Solo movie, a Boba Fett movie, then who knows -- a Leia movie, an Obi-Wan movie, a Darth Vader trilogy...). Maybe eventually you'll get an Old Republic movie set ostentatiously wayyyyy before the PT, but probably not for a decade. I get that you don't like the PT and that a horrifically vocal geek minority feels as you do, but it does mean what you'll be seeing for a decade or two will be very samey. Maybe too samey, if TFA is any indication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:00
|
|