Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

LinkesAuge posted:

But he didn't even "learn" that the Sith have the ability to save people from dying, he just heard a myth (are we supposed to think of Anakin as literal child who believes every story he is told?). Palpatine didn't offer him any powers, there was no proof that he could actually have such a power nor does he even know if the Sith still exist or who they are (up until that certain moment).
It's all just so flimsy as excuse for him to turn to the dark side. Sure he had bad visions about his wife but that's really not enough as justification/motivation, not to mention that it makes it even more stupid that he is in the end the one who hurts his wife. The whole way he acts and then "decides" to join the dark side doesn't feel organic. It's not even a real decission, his "turn" was more of an impulse. That might seem human on one hand but on the other hand it also made it way less dramatic than it could have been. Anakin stumbled to the dark side instead of being seduced by it. I know that some people will argue that's how it was supposed to be and everything else is just fan fiction in the minds of SW fans but it certainly doesn't add any sympathy towards Anakin and takes gravitas away from the whole story.
Until today I don't understand why Lucas wasted two movies before finally starting to tell the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader (and yes that was THE reason to be excited for the prequels). On top of that the big dramatic moment wasn't even well setup for the final movie. Padme wasn't put in danger, there is no conflict between Anakin and Obi-Wam/the Jedi, Palpatine still hadn't revealed himself or really started to turn Anakin, Anakin himself was still 100% in the Jedi camp (and yes some teeny bitching about Obi-Wan doesn't change that) and hardly showed any character development or growth as person (in whatever direction). Parts of Dooku's character for example would have worked well with Anakin. There you have a former Jedi who was disappointed/felt betrayed by the Jedi and thus turned to the dark side. Why introduce such an additional character when you are already trying to tell the story of Darth Vader? I get the need for a big "villain" but having Dooku and Grievous was just unecessary and messy. I guess the problem was already in the pacing of the prequels. Setting the first film so far behind the other two was always going to cause problems in regards to story telling, the time gap was simply too big for a more cohesive story and while it was a good moment in TPM in hindsight it would have been better to keep Darth Maul around for the 2nd movie.
That way Anakin could have had his big moment in the 2nd movie against Maul with plenty of possibilities to create a dramatic story around it (revenge for Quin-Gon or whatever else Maul might have done in the 1st/2nd movie) and more importantly show more of the relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan/the Jedi instead of wasting your screen time on all kinds of other plots (and I don't even mean the relationship with Padme, that's fine, even necessary to humanize Anakin though I wish it would have been done competently and with actors that had at least some chemistry with each other on screen). Also let Palpatine be more active instead of giving that screen time to Dooku and Grievous. Let him actually seduce Anakin. We got hints of that in the 3rd movie and those were among the best scenes in the prequels but it was too little and too late.
There was never a need for Palpatine to be the biggest undercover master manipulator in space history. His identity doesn't need to be a secret until the third movie. It could have already been revealed in the 2nd movie (at least to some people) and then be used to escalate the story a lot sooner (and there are still enough ways to get Palpatine into power). You could even have used that reveal in showing how ineffective the Jedi have become, not just to the audience but especially to Anakin. Give him an actual side he can turn to/be seduced by instead of this vague background threat the Sith were in the first two prequel movies which was imo one of the biggest problems of the prequels. It not only made the Jedi look more stupid than plausible but it also created problems for the story because Lucas constantly had to invent new factions and characters he could throw at Anakin and the Jedi despite Palpatine/the Sith being the most interesting and the whole "reason" for the prequels in the first place.
The original movies were about those two big forces (pun intended) with the Rebellion being a lot more in the background (sometimes literally being in the background) while the prequels pushed the Republic and the Separatists right into our faces (including their politics) and made the Jedi/the Sith side characters. That's just bad if your main character is Anakin/Darth Vader and not some Star Wars space politician and your famous factions are the Jedi and Sith and not space parties. Do all of that if you want to tell the story of Bail Organa but keep it to a minimum if you want to tell an epic scfi-fantasy story and not a political drama.

I can't tell you how interesting it is when someone posts their long manifesto on how the prequels should have gone.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2015 19:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:51

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

GonSmithe posted:

If the people who bought the toys were actually the children they are meant for, the personalities of the characters don't matter. The toys are made for children who see the trailer and go "WOW HE HAS A COOL LIGHTSABER" and make up their own story about his origins.

Even the manchildren who buy the toys to collect them don't care about personalities, they just need to add them to their collection.

My 10 year old cousin says his favorite Star Wars character is Kylo Ren. He's seen all of the other movies multiple times, his dad's a big Star Wars nerd who even likes the prequels for the most part. I'll have to ask him who Kylo Ren is and see what happens.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 18:48

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

speng31b posted:

Not sure any of those examples are really equivalent. In particular, with CGI Yoda I remember it being really jarring at the time, not just because it was CGI, but because the CGI wasn't quite good enough. Now it is. Maz didn't drag me out of the moment to think "wow, that's really offputting." CGI Yoda totally did.

I don't think either Maz or Yoda looked particularly better or worse than the other.

# ¿ Dec 27, 2015 20:40

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

turtlecrunch posted:

Han said he was tracking them using some signal unique to the Falcon.

I hope it's the tracking device the Empire planted in ANH and he was just like, "I've torn this ship apart and put it back together a half dozen times, and I still don't know where those nerf herders hid it! So I at least found a use for it."

Winifred Madgers fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Dec 28, 2015

# ¿ Dec 28, 2015 05:25

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Careful, guys. In arguing against SMG on this one, you might be falling for his reverse psychology and actually end up reading the film for yourselves, for once.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 18:35

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

I'm still like 35 pages behind in this thread, but (from where I am) Cnut said something a little while ago that I wanted to address. Cnut, I appreciate your posting for the most part, but it does seem you are a lot harsher on TFA than on the prequels, and I mean maybe it's illustrating absurdity by being absurd, taking the piss out of prequel haters by ragging on the new movie in the same way they do on the prequels, and if so I'm sorry for giving away the game, but when talking about TFA you kind of sound like those prequel haters who take everything in a tactical-realism sense.

The example that brought me to this post is when you were talking about Poe acting sassy to Kylo Ren. I mean if you bring it back to ANH, Leia watches her home planet get blown up and then a few scenes later is making snide comments about Luke's height, Han's lack of planning, and Chewie's appearance. Just having a little trouble reconciling, and I suppose maybe you could think ANH is weak on that score as well. But if it were something in the prequels, my conjecture is that you might spend spend a bit more effort on it rather than just retroactively trying to justify your visceral reaction like so many of the prequel haters do for those movies.

If I'm off base feel free to correct me. I'll probably read your reply in about a week when I reach this part of the thread again, haha.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2016 04:02

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Cnut the Great posted:

Anyway, I'm not bashing TFA. I enjoyed the movie for what it was. Really! It's a decent movie. I'm simply pointing out some of its widely overlooked flaws which prevent it from being a great movie. All the criticisms of TFA people are posting here are really so incredibly, incredibly mild when you consider what's been said in the past about other movies in the series.

It's weird that people in this thread get so incredibly defensive about the slightest technical criticisms being made of TFA, a movie which has met with near-universal critical and popular acclaim, and which has quickly become one of the highest-grossing movies of all time.

This is the internet after all. I liked TFA but I can certainly agree that I missed Lucas's steadier pace. When I read a review that said Abrams had made a more old fashioned movie, that's what I expected; I came out of the theater pleased overall but a little breathless, and wondering what exactly that reviewer had meant.

However, we watched his Star Trek movies this past week and, although I saw TFA only once, my recollection is that it wasn't quite THAT kinetic, because although I like those too, they are kind of insane. Or maybe I'm just getting old, but it seemed like each shot lasted an average of about 0.8 seconds.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2016 02:05

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

A breakneck pace is appropriate in some cases - like in the Star Trek reboot, where the characters are constantly bombarded with surreal insanity, force to keep up the pace or go mad.

It is not appropriate when, for example, Rey complains about being hunted with an anger and weariness that reflects a lifetime on the run. Or when they go to a hipster bar to chill out between chase sequence. Or when FN delivers a monologue about how the New Order are the only family he's ever known. Or when the Resistance guys get trapped in combat while they wait for a signal. Or when Leia mourns her husband.

Yeah, that makes sense. I get that some people wish the new Trek movies weren't so frenetic, but it's appropriate for the subject matter, and indeed the overall premise of the original show would benefit from it as well. Exploring strange new worlds, the final frontier, going to see what's out there, and usually getting in way above our heads. Try on Q's challenge to Picard: "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you'd better go home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross - but it's not for the timid." If anything, the reboot films aren't crazy enough yet.

Starkiller Base on the other hand is just about treated as another day at the office by the Resistance; tonally it'd almost be better shot like those Looney Tunes cartoons, with the sheepdog Ackbar and the wolf Hux: "Mornin', Ralph." "Mornin', Sam."

# ¿ Feb 24, 2016 04:08

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

MrSmokes posted:

It'll be the first Blu-Ray I've purchased in quite a while. TFA is definitely a great looking movie. I can't wait to see the Starkiller Base forest fight again on my HDTV, along with the rest of Kylo Ren's scenes, because he's the best. I even want to hear his masked voice again, it just sounds really cool to me.

It's really just amplified with a little distortion. Not that I'm saying it doesn't sound cool, because it does.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2016 22:59

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

As an aside, I'm kinda surprised there hasn't been a special edition CGI Yoda for the OT.

:getin:

# ¿ Mar 17, 2016 01:09

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Cnut the Great posted:

That was never going to happen. On the DVD commentaries, Lucas actually singles out the OT Yoda puppet for being one of the few technical aspects that worked out even better than he'd hoped. He actually tried to get Frank Oz an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor back when TESB first came out:

And that's a quote from Lucas ca. 2010. He doesn't hate puppets. But he also doesn't go out of his way to use them just to say that he did.

That's really cool to hear. I always like learning new things. I've also always had the highest respect for Frank Oz and I'm glad I agree with Lucas.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2016 05:44

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

jivjov posted:

Why do you do these things?

Does it hurt you to call things what they are actually named?

Well you get all upset when people on the internet call each other retards, so which is it?

# ¿ Mar 27, 2016 16:54

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Neurolimal posted:

if that's what you want to define 18-35 year olds, sure. I don't have a negative view of the future of our world, so I'l keep using millennial.

How about adultescents?

# ¿ Apr 1, 2016 03:25

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Yaws posted:

The Star Wars prequels appealed to pathetic sad sacks like dis:

That last picture might be of our very own Cnut the Great

Are you for real? Go around asking guys who look like that what they think of the prequels and I guarantee 99% of them will commence ranting.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2016 03:16

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Schwarzwald posted:

I'm fairly certain they're not.

Well fooey on me, then.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2016 04:48

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

MrMojok posted:

How many of you thread hooligans have Star Wars toys? And are they on display prominently or in boxes in the attic?

I have one. It's a droideka about 3" tall; I got it as a gift because a friend knew I thought (and still do think) they are pretty much the coolest robots ever. It's on my nightstand.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2016 04:48

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

jivjov posted:

The empire's sabotage was fixed by flipping a single lever. Lando and Leia could have fought off TIEs long enough for Chewie to figure it out.

The Executor's tractor beam lock-on was imminent when Artoo activated the hyperdrive.

Edit: I should've known not to bother in the Star Wars thread.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 20:44

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

rear end Catchcum posted:

Like i know we, for some reason, aren't allowed to be meta and talk about the community we pay a fee to be a part of, but it would be really great if people could just be mature enough to be like, you know what, I see your point, I can see why you think that, I disagree but I get it. People here lean so loving hard into their opinions it's just silly.

"The internet makes you stupid."

# ¿ Apr 14, 2016 03:18

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

So is this the thread for talking about Star Wars, or the thread for talking about your feelings about Star Wars?

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 14:58

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

The OT are good movies because they let you feel good about watching Star Wars. The PT are bad movies because they don't let you feel good about watching Star Wars. The Force Awakens is a good movie because it lets you feel good about watching Star Wars.

-- any given Star Wars fan.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 17:43

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Toilet Mouth posted:

I don't think Kylo is so much going to be redeemed as much as we, and the protagonists are going to eventually learn that he has a good reason to have done most everything he's done. He killed Han Solo because within the framework of the franchise, Han Solo needs to die. In the same way, I think there's going to be an in-story reason that the Empire needs to be restored.

Kylo is Ozymandias from Watchmen, Finn is Nite Owl, Rey is Rorschach, Luke is Dr. Manhattan.

My read on it is along these lines, that with his talk of being seduced by the light side, his mission is to grow in the dark side, but not for its own sake. I think he's genuinely regretful at having to kill Han, that wasn't an act. It's not so much that within the narrative Han as himself needs to die, but that Kylo has to kill his own father, whom he respects and loves more than anyone or anything else, as a sort of initiation ritual.

Granted I've still only seen it once and I dont remember all the dialogue, but I don't recall thinking he's playing a long con against Snoke or anything like that, but that Snoke's motive is somehow, if not "good," then at least pragmatic, as I recall the old EU rationale for Palpatine's takong over the Republic through war was not simply a quest for power, but to build up the galactic military to fight off the extragalactic invasion of the later books, which he foresaw. I don't think that works for Palpatine, but from what we've seen of Snoke he doesn't seem to be cackling as he revels in evil for its own sake.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2016 03:15

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Y'all're killing me in here. "Millennial" has two Ns.

Neurolimal posted:

That's a reflection of its time. The 70's was exciting and everyone felt like they were going to change the world with their rebellion. That kind of bombastic opening wouldn't gel with the period TFA intended to portray.

This is actually the opposite of the '70s. It was a depressing time, Vietnam kept getting worse and worse, there was Watergate, the oil crisis, stagflation. The '60s were the heyday of that sort of confidence in the youthful boomers, but by the '70s it was getting crushed. Star Wars was intentionally a throwback to a (perceived) simpler time of moral clarity and idealism, and that's a significant part of its initial success as a franchise.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2016 03:55

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

A great deal of "the prequels are awful" is just reinforcement having taken hold after the initial disappointment and years of increasingly hyperbolic rhetoric on the internet. It's become almost a nerd axiom, or rather an article of faith. It's dogma, and that's why challenging it is met with such vehement resistance.

A couple of my brothers just recently rewatched the prequels and both independently said they were much better than they remembered. This isn't to say that anecdotes = data, but a fresh rewatch while trying to ditch preconceived notions can do wonders. I mean they don't think they're brilliant film masterpieces or even like them quite as much as the OT, but do recognize there is a lot of good in them despite some elements that don't resonate as easily as most of the OT, and I think that's a perfectly fine opinion to have.

About TFA, too.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2016 04:31

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Tezzor posted:

It''s actually because the movies are complete and irredeemable poo poo on almost every conceivable level of storytelling and filmmaking and the recent denial of this amongst a handful of pompous neckbeards is a result of their own contrarianism and not any coherent logic anyone can either see or infer

As I said, hyperbole. However, I forgot to add "laughable" before it.

I say this as one who made fan edits of TPM and AOTC. I sympathize with the sentiment they are flawed films, but they are Star Wars through and through, and if you can't see legitimately good movies at worst lurking behind the flaws then I pity you.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2016 04:57

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Bob Quixote posted:

Side note, how hosed is your planet if a trade blockade is enough to start killing off your population?

You have the resources of an entire world at your disposal and you can't properly feed/medicate/fix whatever the problem that was killing the humans on Naboo was?

They weren't merely blockaded for very long - the invasion is what led to that kind of trouble as the population were moved into camps and presumably most farming and industry ceased.

I don't remember any dialogue from before the invasion about the people of Naboo dying. I'm willing to be corrected, of course.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 03:15

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Tezzor posted:

Uhhh, didn't you just say the blockade was legal? Now you are arguing that it was illegal but the Republic is still bad because if the person you committed the crime against indemnifies you in writing they won't do anything about it? I mean I guess that is bad, for some values of bad. If Exxon demolishes my house and I write a thing that says "I wanted Exxon demolish my house so it's fine" (and never contradict this which is a big flaw in the stupid plot George thought up) the government is probably not going to punish Exxon anyway.

It's important to dispute these overwrought characterizations of everybody being Corrupt Sellout Conformists Man And Like The World Is poo poo Anyway So Who Cares If I Smoke because interpreting everything as badly as possible is a way to support the stupid theory that George meant to do this all along, because the worse we say our good guys are the more implausible it is that he actually meant to make them good guys. It's a way to say "yes, these characters are horrible idiots, in fact, they're even more horrible than you say, they are so horrible and stupid that no waaay someone could have meant to write them as anything else." A way to acknowledge the terrible writing, characterization and concepts and reappropriate them as deliberate and therefore a brilliant subversion. Except for one small problem: They were not deliberate. The lynchpin is pulled and the argument falls apart which is why they have to do poo poo like double down on the absurdity by postulating that the commentary tracks were an elaborate ruse to fool us

Have you answered yet the question of, if the movies were totally identical but George Lucas said he intended everything to be morally complex with the Republic and Jedi tragically corrupt and inept, would you then think they are good movies?

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 20:21

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

At that point Palpatine has already won. Windu and the Jedi should never have let it get to that point and it's far too late for anything good to happen in that room.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2016 03:34

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Tezzor posted:

No, absolutely not. Even if it were intended as a deconstruction of heroic myth or whatever, the acting, characterization, dialogue and cinematography would remain unconscionably terrible and that's without getting into the question of whether we should really be yelling "give us hell, Quimby"

There are quite a few moments in the prequels that fall flat for me for various reasons, but I can't fathom thinking they're "unconscionably terrible" when the parts I don't like, on a subjective level, are still just moments scattered through some otherwise perfectly fine Star Wars movies.

I also can't fathom hating something so much, especially a few movies, that I have to spend hours on the internet daily trying to prove to people who consider it at least worth talking about how wrong they are and that it's in every way complete poo poo.

I mean if there were a thousand-page thread on here about how there's actually some artistic merit to Battlefield: Earth I would be like, that's weird, and either go on my way or maybe read the thread for a bit to try to understand why. I might ask questions, even pointed questions, and I might never get why they think that way, but what's the point of arguing this strenuously? Is it personal to you somehow?

# ¿ Apr 25, 2016 03:57

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Neurolimal posted:

The military wing of the republic shouldn't be taking over the senate and enforcing their own laws. I'm surprised this is even controversial among leftists.

lol

MrSmokes posted:

So what exactly is supposed to be the draw of the prequels, if all the main characters are people that we really shouldn't like? Just the pretty visuals?

Have you ever read any tragedies? The Jedi should be good, but aren't, and this is why they fail and participate in their own destruction. It's not as fun of a message as the OT, which is why most people who were expecting those fun feelings were disappointed. Without knowing why you dislike something it's easy to latch onto the off-putting characters, or other details that don't work for you the way you think they should, to explain it.

This isn't to say those details aren't present or even that they don't matter; I think the prequels for most (including myself) simply aren't as enjoyable on a surface level. There's just a vast gulf between that and viewing them as works of visual art, which is why there's such a disconnect, with both the prequels and TFA.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2016 19:47

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Filthy Casual posted:

None of the moral/philosophical points presented in the film are especially difficult to grasp. Slavery is bad, condoning slavery is bad, considering a sentient being less than you because they look different is bad. Letting corporations have a seat in Congress is bad. Child abduction/indoctrination is bad. War is bad. These aren't exactly hard-hitting points to make, and making them isn't all that interesting. So why care?

I would like to point out that every single one of these has been vehemently disputed in this very thread.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 04:18

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Neo Rasa posted:

The show's greatest achievement of course is that during Jar Jar's appearances he manages to not be annoying and is occasionally actually funny.

"Gentlemen and... (looks around the room) gentlemen...."

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 05:19

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Cnut the Great posted:

But TFA isn't about a new generation struggling to understand the legacy left to them by the previous generation. It's about a new generation finding themselves in the exact same position as the previous generation, because the previous generation proved incapable of leaving them a lasting legacy.

It was the easy way out, writing-wise. What would have been more difficult--and also vastly more interesting, not to mention societally relevant--would have been to depict the new generation striving to carry on the legacy of the previous generation by preserving the new democratic Republic that was left to them. It would have been interesting to see the new characters striving to live up to the example set by the heroes of the OT.....and stumbling--leading to the central conflict which the new heroes must then resolve on their own.

It would have been the first trilogy where a generation of heroes were allowed to make and then correct their own mistakes. Whereas the previous trilogies were all about heroes making mistakes and then relying on their children to redeem them, this third trilogy could (and should logically) have been about the children damning but then ultimately redeeming themselves. It would have been the natural next step demonstrating that the heroes of the OT had succeeded in their task of building a free, self-sufficient society--one with the freedom to make its own mistakes, but also with the wisdom to overcome and correct those mistakes, without succumbing to the temptations of Empire. It would have been the ultimate rebuke of Palpatine's paternalistic worldview, wherein the existence of human folly requires that the people's freedom be taken away from them for their own good.

Unfortunately, this isn't what we got. The reason things are the way they are in TFA is because the heroes of the OT failed their children, just as their own parents once failed them. If TFA had wanted to be bold, it would have told a story where the children are truly the problem this time around, not the parents. But I suppose that wouldn't have been as commercial, for obvious reasons. Just think of how my fellow Millennials might have reacted (probably just fine, actually, but maybe not as well as Disney would have liked).

One of the irksome features of many prequel-haters' posts has been these fanfiction proposals of alterations and "improvements" they would have rather seen than what we got. Rightfully they are usually ignored or decried. You're better than this, Cnut.

# ¿ May 4, 2016 03:37

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Bongo Bill posted:

There is still good in the Republic.

It would be more accurate to say there's still good in the Empire. The Republic/Empire closely follow Anakin/Vader's arc.

Both were well down the path of evil by Episode II, at the very least (this part is for Neurolimal). Is the Republic preferable to the Empire, yes, but that doesn't make it "good."

# ¿ May 5, 2016 03:34

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Cnut the Great posted:

Where else is there to go? We already got a trilogy where the heroes gently caress up and lose to the villains. We already got a trilogy where the heroes fix the other heroes' gently caress-ups and win. Isn't the natural next step a story which shows the culmination of the experiences of the two previous generations in a new generation?

This is in fact the very story that Abrams and co. are clearly attempting to tell. There was really never any way around it. The new dark side threat was always going to be a Skywalker child. By its very nature as a sequel to the previous six films, it was always going to be a film where the children were, in some capacity, the problem. What I'm proposing is pretty much exactly what we were given, only without Han and Luke and Leia being gently caress-ups. I've been railing on that point for ages, in case you haven't noticed.

The problem with the people doing fan fiction rewrites of the prequels isn't that they're suggesting alterations and "improvements." The problem is that their alterations and "improvements" are almost invariably facile and lovely compared to what we got.

We haven't even gotten enough out of the film to know that the now elder generation is the problem. That lack in itself can be a source for objection, I grant you, but the common element in all their problems is Ben. Han, Leia, and Luke didn't necessarily fail him just because he feels they did. His turn to Kylo Ren seems more due to Snoke than any particular failing on their part.

That's the thing about kids, you can do everything "right" and still lose them. You can also screw up and they turn out fine. In Han and Leia's conversation she says she lost him only after they lost Ben, and we have no idea yet what happened with Luke and the Jedi he was training. This film introduced new characters and is even told mostly from their perspective, but it's still about the old characters.

Alright, the Republic didn't go as planned, but we've already been over the fact that the Old Republic was flawed, and the Rebellion to restore it fell short of the vision needed for true progress. This too was predictable from the Lucas films. If the cycle from Republic to Empire is to be broken, the characters must also see that it's a cycle before they can break it.

# ¿ May 8, 2016 04:33

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

That I'm totally fine with, as it's what I was hoping for from it.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2016 13:29

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

feedmyleg posted:

Some day Disney is going to put out a Special Edition of the prequels where they redo all the CGI and recomposite all the live action elements, find some more naturalistic takes, reedit large sequences, remove things that fans have complained about, etc.

It'll make all the prequel haters reevaluate them to some degree, and piss off all the prequel lovers. I can't wait.

If they don't ever make the original prequels available, will the Special Edition complainers keep up their same vehement insistence on film preservation?

# ¿ Jun 22, 2016 19:28

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Production design on Rogue One is absolutely insane so far.

Insanely good, or just insane?

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 02:41

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Maybe I'm failing to pick up on a running gag, but I believe these are production photos, not stills from the film itself.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2016 13:47

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Cpt. Spring Types posted:

Edrio Two Tubes is such an amazing name.

Johnny Five Aces

# ¿ Jul 22, 2016 04:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:51

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Detective No. 27 posted:

I give it five years until that Death Star sized lightsaber the Hutts commissioned in the old EU gets integrated into Disney canon.

If memory serves, it was just the superlaser portion of the design without the actual space station, I don't remember it being a lightsaber.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2016 15:48

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

«‹›4 »