|
Jewmanji posted:The film-makers were whispering to us nerds that Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down were touchstones during the making of his film. Even if its just marketing and genuflection to the nerd hivemind, there was a clear motivation behind this movie to reassure adults that Star Wars has a brand new look (when the truth is that most adult nerds have shades of suspended adolescence in them, and therefore think things that are dark/gritty signify adulthood). This didn't happen either. Phantom Menace begins with two pilots getting shot in the face with a massive antiaircraft cannon.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This didn't happen either. I don't disagree that the movies depict violence to more or less the same extent (C-3PO for instance always seems to suffer horrific injuries), but Rogue One seemed to me to consciously adopt a style of film-violence that is designed to invoke "realness". It is of course merely a stylistic decision and in the abstract sense isn't literally more violent, but seems to signal to the audience, by its association with other "adult" films that we are approaching the same material with more seriousness now. Handheld camerawork used in filming action sequences is designed to semi-consciously invoke the idea of documentary, and thus lend an additional air of "credibility" to what you're seeing on screen. To me, the effect is "what you're watching is not fantasy". JJ did this a bit with those bash-zooms (is that what they're called?) But it was a bit more fleeting in TFA (and of course Lucas used it to great effect in the Battle of Geonosis, but again in a somewhat limited sense and mitigated by the use of fully-CGI characters/scenery). Jewmanji fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Even if its just marketing and genuflection to the nerd hivemind, there was a clear motivation behind this movie to reassure adults that Star Wars has a brand new look I don't remember this at all. I'm legitimately confused by this. I sincerely don't have a clue as to what marketing you're referring to. Schwarzwald fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:They test movies against the basic rules taught in screenwriting class. Star Wars used those rules very well, while the prequels drift pretty far away from them. That is what Red Letter Media brings to any discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I don't remember this at all. Because it didn't happen, Saving Private Ryan has a scene where tanks are prominent and Black Hawk Down was a big deal for its realism and both were huge mainstream action releases so I guess that's all the person could think of. Basically a case of... G-III posted:RLM is what happens when amateur clods with no understanding of art, politics, economics, or even human history use elementary school level pattern recognition to review things and somehow manage to get quasi-famous for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:You're being incoherent. Why is "grim and heavy" outside the purview of children, and what's wrong with "silliness"? It's a taxonomic classification, not like a quiddative one. There are family movies with grim poo poo in them that play it heavy. Star Wars plays it pretty lightly with battling fascists and when a lady's planet gets blown up, though. Like when people call something a grindhouse film or a western, they're noting a group of resemblances between it and other movies, not identifying some quality that marks a film absolutely as one thing or another. I'm giving a subjective aesthetic evaluation of a film here, not judging you for liking Star Wars. I too like Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
One time I compared the original Star Wars movie to Dazed in Confused in that both feel like you're tagging along on some adventure that's unfolding organically, with characters to guide you that feel like real people. There's a bit of time where they're dicking around, even in Empire when the Imperials are on their way and Luke's just out of the tube. I often thought the prequels fell short in that department, but at least there's some unity between the characters most of the time, like a soap opera or something. For a movie called Rogue One, I really couldn't tell you a lot about the emotional glue that unites the people comprising Rogue One. They all might have a bone to pick with the Empire, but there's no reward in getting to know them as they play off each other - most of the time they barely have a professional respect for each other. I didn't have a problem with Darth Vader's voice like some people did, but my jaw dropped when James Earl Jones' last line as Darth Vader was a loving pun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Considering that Gareth Edwards was DP on Saving Private Ryan, the comparisons are probably worth noting. But I'm pretty sure they tapped him for the same reason they tapped JJ Abrams: Close working relationships with Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy. Less to do with making the movies more "grimdark" and more about making them, well, Spielbergian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
The Golden Gael posted:I didn't have a problem with Darth Vader's voice like some people did, but my jaw dropped when James Earl Jones' last line as Darth Vader was a loving pun. Didn't know asking his men to prepare a boarding party was a pun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I don't disagree that the movies depict violence to more or less the same extent (C-3PO for instance always seems to suffer horrific injuries), but Rogue One seemed to me to consciously adopt a style of film-violence that is designed to invoke "realness". It is of course merely a stylistic decision and in the abstract sense isn't literally more violent, but seems to signal to the audience, by its association with other "adult" films that we are approaching the same material with more seriousness now. Handheld camerawork used in filming action sequences is designed to semi-consciously invoke the idea of documentary, and thus lend an additional air of "credibility" to what you're seeing on screen. To me, the effect is "what you're watching is not fantasy". JJ did this a bit with those bash-zooms (is that what they're called?) But it was a bit more fleeting in TFA (and of course Lucas used it to great effect in the Battle of Geonosis, but again in a somewhat limited sense and mitigated by the use of fully-CGI characters/scenery). I haven't seen Rogue One yet, but the trailers seemed to be cut to suggest that it draws a lot on war movies. Maybe that's what you're picking up and reading as "gritty," etc?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This didn't happen either. It didn't actually show violence done to the body though, just obscured visually distanced inferred deaths in a explosion. Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan are violent, but show the moments and aftermath of injury, prolonged bodily suffering, and visually close onscreen deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:It didn't actually show violence done to the body though, just obscured visually distanced inferred deaths in a explosion. Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan are violent, but show the moments and aftermath of injury, prolonged bodily suffering, and visually close onscreen deaths. Number 1 cause of death in the Star Wars Universe, including Rogue One. RIP, Bodhi. Seriously, though, y'all are making it sound like this movie had a Rebel soldier trying to stuff his entrails back in or something. It's shot like a war movie, but a PG-13 war movie about space ships and fish people. Not an R-Rated Historical Drama about Actual Terrible poo poo that Happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:It didn't actually show violence done to the body though, just obscured visually distanced inferred deaths in a explosion. Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan are violent, but show the moments and aftermath of injury, prolonged bodily suffering, and visually close onscreen deaths. Rogue One has very little of that either. Have you, like, seen Blackhawk recently? The trouble is again that memes corrupt the brain. People don't have the language to articulate concepts outside of 'grim', 'grimdark', or the recently-popularized 'dour'. When all you have is a hammer...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:The film-makers were whispering to us nerds that Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down were touchstones during the making of his film. Even if its just marketing and genuflection to the nerd hivemind, there was a clear motivation behind this movie to reassure adults that Star Wars has a brand new look (when the truth is that most adult nerds have shades of suspended adolescence in them, and therefore think things that are dark/gritty signify adulthood). Well you see, you just don't like Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:It didn't actually show violence done to the body though, just obscured visually distanced inferred deaths in a explosion. Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan are violent, but show the moments and aftermath of injury, prolonged bodily suffering, and visually close onscreen deaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsqqLeVc-b0 Cordé would like to disagree. gohmak fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
It's genuinely hilarious to compared that scene to anything in Black Hawk Down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:Didn't know asking his men to prepare a boarding party was a pun. poo poo you're right I forgot he even said anything at the end. The other line, about choking on ambition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
The Golden Gael posted:One time I compared the original Star Wars movie to Dazed in Confused in that both feel like you're tagging along on some adventure that's unfolding organically, with characters to guide you that feel like real people. There's a bit of time where they're dicking around, even in Empire when the Imperials are on their way and Luke's just out of the tube. I often thought the prequels fell short in that department, but at least there's some unity between the characters most of the time, like a soap opera or something. For a movie called Rogue One, I really couldn't tell you a lot about the emotional glue that unites the people comprising Rogue One. They all might have a bone to pick with the Empire, but there's no reward in getting to know them as they play off each other - most of the time they barely have a professional respect for each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
I cannot remember the name of any Rogue One character, and know several others with the same problem, so they became faceless Terrorists for Good in both word and deed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
temple posted:Rogue One is not a marvel movie. Who said it was? The last one I saw was Captain America 2, and although it was pretty good I don't think that's at all what I described
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It's a taxonomic classification, not like a quiddative one. There are family movies with grim poo poo in them that play it heavy. Star Wars plays it pretty lightly with battling fascists and when a lady's planet gets blown up, though. Like when people call something a grindhouse film or a western, they're noting a group of resemblances between it and other movies, not identifying some quality that marks a film absolutely as one thing or another. I'm giving a subjective aesthetic evaluation of a film here, not judging you for liking Star Wars. I too like Star Wars. Does Star Wars play it lightly, or are you as an adult merely inured to its fantastic representation of conflict? 'Cause I remember being pretty freaked out by a drunk hairy bar beast getting its arm severed. Weird aliens screeched and lurched, pistols and laser swords were used liberally, as a child none of those things seemed particularly 'light' to me - they were all a part of the phantasmagoria of the films, not superficial content that I could just compartmentalize away as 'not real' or 'too amazing to be believed.' Growing up Catholic didn't help the perpetual blurring of spectacular depictions of violence and the supernatural and 'reality.' You may like Star Wars, but your subjective aesthetic evaluation is really reductive - which has always been the only point. There is no "quidditative" quality of kids movies - the superficial content and readings of the overall 'tone' of kids movies are mutually reinforced constructions of adults in response to contemporary cultural, political, and philosophical preoccupations. This goes back to what you were implying about how Rogue One distills a compulsion of adults to sublimate their shame at liking kids stuff by trying to "make it adult." It's a meaningless accusation that you've only clarified with more essentialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
I liked the original movies as a kid because of the characters. I didn't like the prequels as much because of the characters.SuperMechagodzilla posted:The trouble is again that memes corrupt the brain. People don't have the language to articulate concepts outside of 'grim', 'grimdark', or the recently-popularized 'dour'. When all you have is a hammer... The memedium is the massage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Return of the Jedi features a giant guttural worm that has a menagerie of trolls that he feeds innocent slaves to. This is the problem with memes, except now we're incorporating misinterpretation of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, so that it becomes a movie exclusively about that scene where Kevin Smith says it's dumb that James Bond movies are considered more appropriate for kids than Saving Private Ryan, instead of about how the MPAA is a corrupt front of major film distributors whose policy is specifically that they don't have to defend their 'common sense' positions. It's common sense that Star Wars is for kids, but nobody explains how 'kids movie' is actually a genre - as opposed to a superficial demographic category.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:It's common sense that Star Wars is for kids, but nobody explains how 'kids movie' is actually a genre - as opposed to a superficial demographic category.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Never show a child a film made for children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Plinkett became an internet darling because he had an opinion that happened to align with this gigantic fandom, I wonder how things will go now that he may end up disagreeing with those same people. Ironically, in helping me to cognize why I disliked the prequels, the Plinkett reviews helped me to be able to watch and appreciate them for what they were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:ehhh... Plinkett became an Internet darling because he legitimized and articulated criticism of the fandom in a way that hadn't been done before. Not really, though? Star Wars fans upset with the prequels desperately wanted a way of saying "I don't like this because it's not the ones I watched when I was a kid" that wasn't so petty, couldn't do it themselves, and RLM/Plinkett came at the precise right time to give those people the  to parrot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
I disagree. I don't remember any complaints that superficial, at least not in my circle of friends. All of us had seen the special edition re-releases but it's not like we grew up on Star Wars, or had any particular nostalgia for the OT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Rogue One has very little of that either. Have you, like, seen Blackhawk recently? I was talking specifically about that first TPM scene, which is very similar to most of the bloodless faceless deaths in the originals. The prequels ramp up the torture and dismemberment and gore and suffering and TFA brings it back down to the baseline. Rogue One is a bit "darker" than the originals, but mainly because so many named heroes are killed. It's ridiculous to say or imply R1 is anywhere near as violent as SPR or BHD, virtually all of the deaths are of the "bloodless laser blast and fall down immediately" or "swallowed by ball of fire" variety.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
Soggy Cereal posted:I've found the Red Letter Media analysis on movies to be pretty lazy, lately. It's probably mainly because I've started disagreeing with them, but there are other things that other people have noted as well. Original Plinkett reviews had content and were successful because Stoklasa et al. had a seething hatred for prequels for several reasons. It's pretty easy to rant about prequels if you have spent half a decade thinking what exactly is wrong with them. They also had an emotional connect to old movies. That is good soil for comedic review or parody - the review writes itself. I have some experience with this. But they don't have that sort of connection to newer Star Wars. They did not dislike or like Rogue One, they considered it mediocre. Evans called it unremarkable. They liked The Force Awakens and, like many other people, have found it to be less interesting as time goes by. By the way, this is not something they picked from the audience and went on with - you can see the same reaction if you read e.g. the TFA thread from these forums. It's a revelation that comes naturally to quite many people. Basically RLM people lack motivation and source material to do Plinkett reviews for newer movies, because the newer movies are well-crafted, relatively uninteresting, by-the-books and lack the interesting failures of the PT. I also have some experience with running out of love-hate relationship with the subject, and then you just have to pull the plug and move on. El Perkele fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Regarding Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, etc: http://variety.com/2015/film/news/star-wars-rogue-one-plot-details-death-star-1201475420/ quote:Edwards emphasized that the film is first and foremost a war movie, “It’s called ‘Star Wars,'” he pointed out wryly. Below-the-line talent and production heads have previously worked on a number of combat films, with Edwards name-dropping “Zero Dark Thirty,” “Black Hawk Down” and “Saving Private Ryan” to give fans an idea of “Rogue One’s” inspirations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I just said it will be interesting to see how they react, not that they were purposely pandering necessarily. Plinkett became an internet darling because he had an opinion that happened to align with this gigantic fandom, I wonder how things will go now that he may end up disagreeing with those same people. I don't agree with their opinions on the films, but they're still pretty funny. Especially the start of HitB for Rogue One.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/womens-healthcare-star-wars Thought this was a real interesting take on the childbirth plot in Episode III. This has always bothered me and so i'm happy to see someone finally tackle it over a decade later. Much better read then any take on Star Wars in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
RLM also had PT and OT documentaries and behind the scenes footage to misinterpret and unfairly edit to use against Lucas (in an entertaining way, admittedly) while I guess they do not have such resources for the new films. Making fun of George Lucas for 4 hours makes a lot of nerds happy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:RLM also had PT and OT documentaries and behind the scenes footage to misinterpret and unfairly edit to use against Lucas (in an entertaining way, admittedly) while I guess they do not have such resources for the new films. Makes you pretty salty too
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
No, I loved the PT RLM reviews. They were super entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:https://motherboard.vice.com/read/womens-healthcare-star-wars Just started reading this, but the first thing that came to mind is Dune Messiah. Herbert wrote the sequel to Dune as a deconstruction of the hero myth in the first book, so naturally it's all about Paul's reign going to poo poo. The primary reason for this happening is that Paul has foreseen that Chani will die giving birth to Leto II and Ghanima, and Paul cannot bear to lose her (even allowing Princess Irulian to get away with secretly feeding her contraceptives) despite the fact that the lack of an heir is the root cause of the problems facing his empire. An interesting parallel, right down to the children being twin brothers/sisters. e: Dune is really an SMG field day, since Children of Dune is about Leto II becoming a literal and metaphorical monster for the salvation of mankind, another sacrifice which Paul could not bring himself to make. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Paul didnt foresee Ghanima.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
RLM has definitely gone downhill and in particular their Plinkett reviews of TFA and RO were downright dogshit. Their TFA review barely even talked about the movie and when it did the points were nonsensical to outright stupid. It was like an hour and a half of wasted time. And then the RO review was just terrible, as was the butthurt followup when fans rightfully criticised them. The argument that the movie wouldn't work without the Star Wars IP fails because the IP does exist. It's like criticising a building for needing its walls to stand up. A problem that doesn't exist. It sucks, but I think they've just lost that spark. The HitB reviews have suffered as well. Don't think they care enough anymore. Or perhaps their jaded outlook has simply worn out its welcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Paul didnt foresee Ghanima. I didn't remember that, but that actually makes the parallels even clearer. Vader doesn't find out about Leia until he reads Luke's feelings of protectiveness towards her shortly before his death in Return of the Jedi, and the fact that twins weren't foreseen is a big part of the article mentioned above. e: thinking about the underlying themes, two possibilities come to mind. One is that death in childbirth has, until recently, been really common. More compelling, I think, is that the underlying fear might be that having children threatens the intimacy with one's partner. These very archetypal men who are dependent on their archetypal female selves are afraid of any threat to the affection they provide. Because these are fantastic works, this manifests as their being fated to lose their partner in childbirth. This anxiety is resolved by the birth of a male/female pair of twins embodying a healthy relationship between the masculine and feminine self. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:56
|
|