|
Going by Lucas's reactions they'll be really safe, vanilla films. Probably not as good or interesting as the prequels but we'll see.
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Race Realists posted:is.. is this some sort of bait? The prequels are controversial, subversive, and visually engaging. Maybe the new one will be, but Lucas's quip seems to have a good bit of subtext to it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Star Wars is a flat circle.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
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?). quote: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. An epic sci-fi fantasy, such as Star Wars in this particular example, is a sort of political drama.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Star Wars killed New Hollywood and must die in agony for proving that Jaws-level blockbusters could be replicated. Gilles Deleuze angrily shakes his fist at the passing TIE fighter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:no SHUT UP people need to read my c+ film class 1101 analysis! Film discussion in the film discussion forum, my stars
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Aren't we talking about different kinds of love though? Like, the love Luke has is Christian-style, which I don't think the jedi are against, and the love Anakin has is specifically romantic. I would say it's the reverse, or at least it is Luke who fails to make a proper ethical commitment.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Obviously Star Wars has given him license to live again. And me as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Star Guarded posted:Cool thanks. Some people love the movie, others think it is aggressively mediocre. Spoiler alert.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
NPRs political commentary is awful. CarTalk reruns are good though. PHC is good too though ive heard Garrison is a huge dick in real life. Edit: Also Serial was fascinating for the precise moment you could tell Koenig knew the guy was guilty. Danger fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:This paragraph in general and those last two sentences in particular are awfully wrongheaded. The movie makes it pretty clear that Leia would be the first to tell Luke to take the shot even if she still was on the Death Star. Also, what's the exact ideological statement made when characters have to weigh an uncertain number of prisoners' lives lost in the destruction of the Death Star against the literally billions of lives endangered by it's ongoing existence along with the complete destruction of the Rebellion? The ideological statement is that the laborers and slaves on the death star are invisible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is some Spook Who Sat By The Door stuff - but this imagery only makes sense if our heroes are a part of the Death Star already. I had a whole post half written out when the discussion was on the living ships/cities on the depiction of a Delueze's machinic phylum, an actual expression of the virtual (the Force), in Star Wars and how c3po and r2d2 are specifically positioned as radical in relation to it (and indeed they are introduced as nomads) but then I had to go to a meeting and my computer went to sleep and lost it and I had lost my train of thought. I think the films make a point to make C3PO (the linguist) and R2D2 distinct as human characters (or the human characters as droids). Danger fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
The criticism that sticks out to me that I've read is it's familiarity with the MCU model: where yes, it's the beginning of a trilogy, but in a way that it's less it's own film and more a "setup" for the next film (which we see now continuing into perpetuity with Marvel--why does Kylo act this way? Well look forward to Kylo's Adventure this Summer). Lucas's reaction mirrored this, stating it's what fans were looking for (which we of course realize is the absence of satisfaction). Whether or not that's true, I don't know. I'll see it tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:*GASP* Not a movie that feels like an episode in a sci-fi serial! George must be seething. A New Hope wasn't made to start a merchandising franchise and even with what followed as a whole is much different than the vulgar marvel model. Regardless, even if the intent is to specifically create vacuous desire the film itself stands on its own regardless with its own ideological assumptions, which is what we should analyze.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:George intended there to be sequels. Hence why he did that crazy rights thing and funded the other two out of his own pocket. Lucas originally conceived it as part of a trilogy protesting American imperialism in the Vietnam War alongside American Graffiti and Apocalypse Now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
The droids and aliens seem virtual because they are.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
I can't imagine someone attending a 15 hour marathon is composed of the general movie going audience.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Clapping at a film is probably attributable to the effects of social media, and the 'like' stuff on facebook or whatever. Where, in a live performance, you're at least theoretically clapping for the performers, clapping at a theater is unambiguously directed at the other moviegoers in a way that allows you to 'upvote' the film. This serves basically the same function as with Rotten Tomatoes Dot Com - which is, of course, named for the practice of jeering at live performers, but actually just serves to aggregate and amplify audience reactions and then deliver them back to that same audience. Wouldn't the proper Lacanian explanation refer to the Other?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Star Wars hot take : They should have relied more on visuals to tell the story, particularly with the encounter between Han and Ben. The darkness washing over him, then the saber igniting through Han without any dialogue would have been more compelling and been more than sufficient to relay Ben as an anguished child whose father abandoned him to star wars. But hamfisted dialogue is a Star Wars tradition, so I get it I do. Danger fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
The inclusion of David Cross's character lamenting his exhaustion was a bit much to include, but good to finally hear the titular line.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
FYAD isn't a spoiler as Lucas revealed that years ago, noted in one of the greatest CD posts of all time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Bucswabe posted:Also, people have been commenting on Rey being completely inexperienced with force powers / Jedi combat. But I am guessing that we will find out that Rey was actually being trained as a Jedi when she was very young (particularly if she's Luke's daughter) and simply forgot all of it when she had to be abandoned. The idea that Force powers work like leveling up in a video game is not at all how the Force has ever been treated in Star Wars. It is metaphorical.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Darko posted:Force powers always required a level of training, though. Luke had all the confidence in the world going against Vader, and his lack of training just resulted in him easily getting tossed aside. They're basically one part latent talent, one part training, and one part confidence. However, the training has always ultimately been revealed as impotent, and explicitly so in the prequels. The Force is a belief, or a community of believers. This film underscores that as well: Overtly showing the neurosis Kylo experiences from his father's abandonment, ineffectually trying to mask it with "sith training" or whatever that ultimately is useless when opposed to Rey's faith.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Corek posted:Sam Kriss hobnobs with goons and ex-goons on twitter and has recently provoked a response from Slavoj Zizek for criticizing his refugee stance. It's quite possible that the article actually was derived from SMG's posting here. Kriss's take on Zizek's piece was dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
pigdog posted:But here's the problem. The people who grew up with the original series are grown up now, and would expect films to have grown up as well. This part is great.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:You were the target audience of all the political jibber jabber of the prequels, weren't you. Trade negotiations and blockades! Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor Valorum's leadership! THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACY DIES, WITH THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE! It's great how her lines from that movie are indistinguishable from a chain letter from my great-aunt.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Vishass posted:I walked out after someone hyperspace jumped within a gravity well Is that a new euphemism? I just found out what 'netflix and chill' was the other week.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Augus posted:If something intentional comes across as clunky, like it was a result of bad direction rather than author intent, then it probably isn't a good scene. Intentional and clunky are not mutually exclusive, and anyways the 'clunkiness' or perception of clunkiness is an aspect of the film regardless of the intent of direction or author and should be incorporated into a reading of the film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
My other favorite thing about star wars "fans" is using "cgi" as a sort of "mumble mumble bad" while having no idea what that even refers to in almost any sense. I'm not talking about children, though, the actual star wars fans who trust in the force.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
It's fine to make the claim that Kylo is unthreatening, but include that in a holistic reading of the film because it has meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The flashback scene was so vague that I had initially assumed it was a premonition. The film was very vanilla in a lot of ways but the flashback was the most interesting element, that the past and future could penetrate the present, but stopped short of using this to make a radical statement they way Lucas did with the special editions. Follow this time-image to it's radical conclusion, include past scenes from the PT and OT but altered (confusing "canon"), depict images from future films that end up altered. edit: A great example of what I mean: mr. stefan posted:The resistance is literally the space-mujahideen and the wider conflict in TFA is basically 80's Afghanistan, cold war-style proxy fighting. What's weird is that this situation appears to have happened by accident, as a result of Abrams and co. trying to simultaneously maintain the status quo of the original series while also trying to not invalidate the rebellion-vs-empire arc by implying that nothing has improved in the last 30 years. mirroring the original films depiction of the North Vietnamese as a sympathetic rebellion. Danger fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I honestly wish the film had all the 'gently caress the prequels, nuke Corsucant, put Jar Jar's skeleton in the background' stuff. That would be something, at least. The most interesting part is Alec Guinness and Ewan Mcgregor, speaking as one person, speaking to Rey while the past/future collapse into the present. With some outside infomormation for context you literally have Alec Guinness telling Rey that fear is her name and her path to freedom. The imagery accompanying would have been more compelling if had been presented the other way around then or perhaps continuing the statement later in the film: depicting the present giving way to the past and future (or perhaps the past/future violently invading the present instead of dissolving/resolving into it); the actual opening into the virtual. Danger fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Lucas owns.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:When Rey is called 'scavenger scum', her response is effectively "I'm not scum like them." They specifically include a scene where Rey sees herself in the future as a worn, old woman with the specific message of how terrible a fate it would be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Because Rey is so morally against stealing from crashed warships.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Stealing from other scavengers seems like a no-no on noted shithole Jakku. You mean like when Rey stole from Teedo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:the same standard that makes Anakin a Christlike figure is the same one that makes every single character in all of fiction a Jesus figure. The virgin birth, you mean?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Throwbacks, references, of course. Is anything as blatant as a literal 50s diner waitress robot that even talks like a 50s diner waitress? In the OT? God that loving diner just gets my goat every time. I honestly dont think theres anything like it in the OT, but I am sure some enterprising PT defender will bring something up (which is ok, I enjoy all the debates!) It's an explicit reference to American Graffiti, a film very closely linked to Star Wars. Lucas is quoting American Graffiti. The integrity of the Star Wars "universe" doesn't need to be defended, it isn't real. corn in the fridge posted:I always thought the 50s diner scene was more of a character moment for Obi-wan, as in he probably frequents these places often and he really enjoys it, possibly some sort of pretentious prince among the peasants thing. The likeness of the diner to that of an earth diner was irrelevant to the scene but added a bit of extra charm imo Danger fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
What's the overlap, I wonder, on people who take offense to the scathing observation that Star Wars is for children with those who complain that the prequels ruined their childhood.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:PT interpretors hating TFA are made even funnier by the fact that a significant argument in favor of their readings was that it is better to consider the good in a movie than to force oneself into a negative, unenjoyable experience. Pro-PT versus Pro-OT is a false distinction, they are all able to be included in part of a larger philosophical discussion. What is at odds is moreso the act of reading vs. dismissing. You can not like a film but still engage in an active reading of it. You can also like a film while exploring it's troubling implications.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 16:18
|
|