|
Beefstew posted:The only big blockbuster movie villain in the past decade that's better than Kylo Ren is Immortan Joe. 
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
as good as both those villains are, it has been a historically lovely time for villains imo, most of them these days are just a white dude that had something happen in his past and now he's massively over-reacting
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
cat doter posted:as good as both those villains are, it has been a historically lovely time for villains imo, most of them these days are just a white dude that had something happen in his past and now he's massively over-reacting Kylo Ren works, because it makes him unpredictable. Sticking a massive chip on his shoulder about wanting to be as good as Grandpa Vader and winding him up means we have no clue what he might do to make himself feel as powerful as his grandfather. As terrifying as Vader was, his actions were all calm, measured and planned. If a plan failed he'd strangle a subordinate, recoup his losses, and try something else. Kylo Ren's arguably even scarier, because you don't know which way he'll jump if panicked just to try and succeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Making him a spiteful entitled turd is a masterstroke because that's a kind of dangerous that rarely makes it to the movies because it's not cool and probably not fun for the actors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
cat doter posted:as good as both those villains are, it has been a historically lovely time for villains imo, most of them these days are just a white dude that had something happen in his past and now he's massively over-reacting Well the thing about Immortan Joe that's great is that he's basically an embodiment of the patriarchy down to a T, even having other men under him not realizing they're simply his lapdogs. And in the end they just about literally tear him down and Furiosa and the other battle grannies that survived get taken up on an elevator as the masses cheer. Without hyperbole Fury Road is probably one of the best, and if not best, most accessible feminist movies ever made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
perhaps I could've phrased that better, I just mean that immortan joe and kylo ren are great, but they stand out among a pile of REALLY lovely villains of late, so they're great and all but the competition is hardly fierce
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Is Heath Ledger's Joker retroactively ruined by having been the template for 80% of the villains that followed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Making him a spiteful entitled turd is a masterstroke because that's a kind of dangerous that rarely makes it to the movies because it's not cool and probably not fun for the actors. One thing I love in the final fight is watching him furiously beat on his chest to psych himself up. Dude was not happy about getting his rear end handed to him and just wouldn't back down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:One thing I love in the final fight is watching him furiously beat on his chest to psych himself up. Dude was not happy about getting his rear end handed to him and just wouldn't back down. Thaaaat's not quite what's happening, but close. He's punching the wound in his side that Chewie gave him on the bridge. He's dulling the pain or possibly using his pain to psych himself up. Maybe he thinks that's how the dark side works?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
I thought it was to keep him angry what with the whole sith code thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Is Heath Ledger's Joker retroactively ruined by having been the template for 80% of the villains that followed? i say marval and star trek have been the worse offender of dull villians but only loki would be the one i say is joker like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Is Heath Ledger's Joker retroactively ruined by having been the template for 80% of the villains that followed? uhhhhh, no?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
TheMaestroso posted:Thaaaat's not quite what's happening, but close. He's punching the wound in his side that Chewie gave him on the bridge. He's dulling the pain or possibly using his pain to psych himself up. Maybe he thinks that's how the dark side works? Ahh, I missed that. I'd go with pain to psych himself up, Suffering is part of the whole Sith thing after all. Or at least how he thinks it probably works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
TheMaestroso posted:Thaaaat's not quite what's happening, but close. He's punching the wound in his side that Chewie gave him on the bridge. He's dulling the pain or possibly using his pain to psych himself up. Maybe he thinks that's how the dark side works? It's kind of a big point that his gran-pappy was in constant pain all the time so maybe Snoke told him he needs pain to truly connect with the dark side?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:One thing I love in the final fight is watching him furiously beat on his chest to psych himself up. Dude was not happy about getting his rear end handed to him and just wouldn't back down. The last fight of The Force Awakens is brilliant. Definitely the second-best lightsaber fight in series (both for the visual and narrative elements), after Return of Jedi's. One common criticism that really irks me is when people say Kylo Ren shouldn't have lost. Uhhh, he absolutely should have. He had to fight two people in a row, he was already bleeding and limping, and he doesn't have the control that Vader had. Kylo Ren is literally an angry kid waving a stick. And I've heard some critics say that it's pointless to have Kylo Ren remain as a villain since Rey already beat him in a fight. They said that it effectively removes his character as a threat. I think it's literally the opposite. Kylo Ren is probably so ashamed of how badly he got his rear end whooped that he's gonna double down on training and become even more obsessively violent - especially now that he has a goal. I'm really excited to see where they take Kylo Ren next. If we're just considering how well they were characterized in their introductory movies, Kylo Ren is a much stronger character than Darth Vader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
and i am going to bet next movie he is going to be a bit more machine then man to try to make him more trying to go down his grand dads path.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Beefstew posted:The last fight of The Force Awakens is brilliant. Definitely the second-best lightsaber fight in series (both for the visual and narrative elements), after Return of Jedi's. I know RotJ gets a lot of poo poo but the stuff with Luke, Vader and Palpy is just so, so, SO loving good. I forgot who said it, and I don't think it was RLM actually, but the least important part of a lightsaber fight is the actual lightsabers. It's when there's actual emotion to the fight. Vader and Old Ben kinda awkwardly swinging is great because they were old friends and one of them is legit an old man and the other is some hosed up guy in a robot suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Kylo Ren is really just a redux of Anakin Skywalker. In fact, TFA relies on audiences having seen the prequels in order to implicitly fill in Kylo Ren's backstory (even then it's confused since they skip the part where he becomes an inhuman machine). You can't really call him superior when he's textually and functionally emulating a character from within the decade. Lex Luthor is already Anakin's successor as cinema's #1 pissbaby anyway. Immortan Joe has only one flaw as a villain: he's cooler than the lamer heroes even when he's supposed to be badwrong, and thus he can never be truly banished (jut like Darth Vader). BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
I thought Furiosa was way cooler than Max or Joe ever were. Furiosa is a badass with a metal arm that was a better shot than Max, and sacrificed what I'm pretty sure was a a fairly comfortable living in a post-apocalyptic setting for the sake of s possible better future for herself and a few women. Not to mention having to defy Joe and deal with his entire army coming down on her in retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
Tracula posted:I know RotJ gets a lot of poo poo but the stuff with Luke, Vader and Palpy is just so, so, SO loving good. I forgot who said it, and I don't think it was RLM actually, but the least important part of a lightsaber fight is the actual lightsabers. It's when there's actual emotion to the fight. Vader and Old Ben kinda awkwardly swinging is great because they were old friends and one of them is legit an old man and the other is some hosed up guy in a robot suit. At least for me, the most frustrating part of RotJ is how loving good some of it is, mixed in with some poo poo that is just terrible. The Death Star confrontation is the high point of the entire series.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Roth posted:I thought Furiosa was way cooler than Max or Joe ever were. Furiosa is a badass with a metal arm that was a better shot than Max, and sacrificed what I'm pretty sure was a a fairly comfortable living in a post-apocalyptic setting for the sake of s possible better future for herself and a few women. Not to mention having to defy Joe and deal with his entire army coming down on her in retaliation. Well yeah, they're goodright, but the spectre of Immortan Joe is too compelling. Like it's odd that the movie didn't go with the logical and more satisfying path of Furiosa taking over his cult as a new, just Immortan Jane. Since they didn't go with that route, the War Boys have to limply disappear from the narrative with Nux's sacrifice. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Kylo Ren is really just a redux of Anakin Skywalker. In fact, TFA relies on audiences having seen the prequels in order to implicitly fill in Kylo Ren's backstory (even then it's confused since they skip the part where he becomes an inhuman machine). You can't really call him superior when he's textually and functionally emulating a character from within the decade. Lex Luthor is already Anakin's successor as cinema's #1 pissbaby anyway. these are some really strange points that I do not agree with at all, TFA uses the language of star wars to subvert certain tropes and deconstruct them, whereas immortan joe uses his appearance in part to command his people, if he's "cool" and imposing then people will be that much more likely to follow and/or worship him
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
cat doter posted:these are some really strange points that I do not agree with at all, BotL.txt
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
cat doter posted:these are some really strange points that I do not agree with at all, TFA uses the language of star wars to subvert certain tropes and deconstruct them, whereas immortan joe uses his appearance in part to command his people, if he's "cool" and imposing then people will be that much more likely to follow and/or worship him "Subvert," "tropes," "deconstruct"... Hmmm.... My point is pretty simple: Kylo Ren is a redux of Anakin Skywalker. His backstory is implicitly provided by the prequels: he's a vulnerable religious warrior who betrayed the Jedi and the Republic. Characters are just devices to tell stories, and should be judged by their stories. He's not really a great villain because his story isn't all that good. Immortan Joe is a fantasy figure that represents what the Wasteland brings out people, like most other Mad Max villains. They're the people who go "mad," and thus are inevitably the most powerful characters. Who actually quotes Furiosa? And it's not a coincidence that Max becomes less and less interesting the less Mad he is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
yeah gently caress me using words that describe story concepts when discussing story concepts lol you're a dickhead mate
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Actually you're right, discussing tropes really brings light to the movie: according to his entry, Kylo Ren is Affably Evil and he's a great Contrasting Sequel Antagonist. He subverts You Have Failed Me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
boy the existence of that lovely website sure does negate the actual meaning of the word
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
The thing is, you are speaking in the language of TvTropes which you seem to have learned second-hand. "Subverting and deconstructing tropes" doesn't have any meaning outside of TvTropes' definition. e: if you have a secret past as a troper... I'm there for you. Let us ex-tropers heal together. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
it is a "trope" in the star wars films that the dark side is a constant, malevolent force that jedis need to be vigilant against because supposedly without that constant vigilance, they will fall to it, it is a recurring theme within those films, which is the literal definition of trope the force awakens seeks to subvert this by making kylo ren vulnerable to the light side, which, until this point in the film series, is something that we've not seen we all know that george lucas has perhaps somewhat a muddy ideology, but it seems to me that lucas thinks that there's an inherent weakness to goodness that makes it very susceptible to evil I mean like gently caress dude the entire point of kylo ren is a subversion and deconstruction of the star wars idea of morality and the power it holds over people, he exists to recontextualise the light vs dark side divide, you literally cannot come out the other side of that film without having to rethink how that poo poo works read a loving dictionary or something I dunno I have no patience for your lame rear end word policing cat doter fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
cat doter posted:the force awakens seeks to subvert this by making kylo ren vulnerable to the light side, which, until this point in the film series, is something that we've not seen Misusing words like "trope" and "deconstruct" in a critical context just obscures their meaning. We've established that Light Side and Dark Side are synonyms for a vague "Good" and a vague "Evil". Which means TFA isn't "subverting" being tempted by the Light Side, that already happened in ROTJ where Darth Vader was tempted to do Good and then did so. So the reduction of things into tropes just obscures basic facts. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
I disagree that I'm misusing them but I also do not care for this conversation so farrrrrrrrrrrrrt
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
cat doter posted:as good as both those villains are, it has been a historically lovely time for villains imo, most of them these days are just a white dude that had something happen in his past and now he's massively over-reacting There's also a lot of wasted potential. SPECTRE should have been one of my favorite Bond movies, you get Christolph Waltz as Blowfeld. It should have been a slam dunk; Waltz can play a good villain (I'd add Hans Landa to the list of really good villains of the past 10 years). Instead, it just misses the mark. Mads in Doctor Strange is the same way. I just want some good villains in my movies, they elevate the movie. Would Die Hard be as well remembered without the presence Rickman gave to Hans Gruber?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 14:12
|
|
wins.
|
cat doter posted:it is a "trope" in the star wars films that the dark side is a constant, malevolent force that jedis need to be vigilant against because supposedly without that constant vigilance, they will fall to it, it is a recurring theme within those films, which is the literal definition of trope What do you mean by 'deconstruction', though? Because the TVTropes definition is pretty far off from the original (nigh-impenetrable) Derridan definition, which basically involves breaking something down into its components until you start finding irreducible conflicts of meaning in order to be exactly clear on what is meant - for instance, what makes a house a house rather than a mansion, shed, or apartment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Bravest of the Lamps: a critic who thinks he's a linguist when he's actually neither; he's just an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Im banning star wars
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
I am a critic but I do not analyze. I am a linguist but I do not theorize. I am warm but you want to stay outside. I am deep but you can't see inside. What am I?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I am a critic but I do not analyze. I am a linguist but I do not theorize. I am warm but you want to stay outside. I am deep but you can't see inside. What am I? dont sign your posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
I thought TFA was a pretty mediocre movie overall, but Kylo Ren was a pretty great villain, if just because he was something different from the Joker inspired, everything is part of my plan, tape villain we saw a lot in recent years. But it is also true that he isn't exactly up against a great competition here, thanks to the Marvel movies all focusing on the hero and only having the antagonist as basically an afterthought. It's not just them though, I think a lot of movies shy away from actually characterizing their villains these days. Or even characterization in general. Maybe that's just me impression, but there is a trend with action scenes taking up a lot more runtime. I saw Rogue one on Monday and the movie is basically nothing but action scenes to the point they kind of forget to actually give their main characters a personality (though TFA had that problem too). And while I don't watch a lot of movies, that is something I noticed in another movies as well. You get a quip or a quirk and that's it, the rest is running, punching and shouting. Kind of a werd trend, when you consider the longer run times of movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
e X posted:Maybe that's just me impression, but there is a trend with action scenes taking up a lot more runtime. I This is happening a lot due to the push for international markets. A movie that is mostly action scenes is a lot easier to translate to non-English countries. You can worry less about nuance or running foul of local content laws if your movie is very straightforward action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:What do you mean by 'deconstruction', though? Because the TVTropes definition is pretty far off from the original (nigh-impenetrable) Derridan definition, which basically involves breaking something down into its components until you start finding irreducible conflicts of meaning in order to be exactly clear on what is meant - for instance, what makes a house a house rather than a mansion, shed, or apartment? I blame Watchmen, which actually IS a deconstruction and got called such. But nerds got confused and thought deconstruction meant "hey this wouldn't work in the real world"
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 17:13
|
|
