Star Wars: 4000 posts later we are no closer to consensus

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: 4000 posts later we are no closer to consensus

«‹›2 »

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I feel like the entire ethos of the film was "whatever you think is going to happen... the opposite happens." The film goes through a lot of trouble to structure itself to be Empire Strikes Back only for the ending to reveal that you were watching a Return of the Jedi remake the whole time. And then that's completely undermined. Rey isn't part of some grand legacy, she's space white trash. The big Empire device used to destroy the rebel base actually goes off this time. The AT-AT walkers that were once menacing Goliath for Luke to outwit now mean nothing to him. The expected repeated strike me down line is replaced with a line that honestly speaks more to the human reality of what it means to hate someone than being space magic. Space Hilary Clinton actually is right in the end. If The Force Awakens was a remake, this was a remix. It tells a new story using elements you already know and opens things up. People walked in expecting this trilogy's Empire to get both Empire and Jedi in one film. The title was probably a clue regarding that. All in all, we are left with an ending where all the beats of the previous trilogy have been met and evil won anyway.

I think it was an enjoyable movie that challenged itself more than it had to and ultimately made Star Wars a more complex and weird world.

I really would love to see a Saga movie from Johnson.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2017 01:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 02:02

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I guess I'm a little confused by the unfocused complaints. It borrows from the New Hope formula of setting up a problem and mostly following that problem to completion. And honestly, the navigational tracker as well as the war of attrition is a really good interesting throughline and nice way to avoid another Death Star. The film has two plots that merge well in the end, and it ultimately has five locales.

I get how the salt planet stuff feels extraneous, but I think it's intentionally so. The film is literally supposed to be over at this point because the movie already covered not how you thought this one would end, but how the final film would end. After covering the familiar beats, evil prevails anyway, and Kylo doesn't believe in the "they blow you up today, you blow them up tomorrow" philosophy. Imagine if after the Death Star was destroyed at the end of A New Hope Vader just called in a relentless airstrike on the Rebel Base and kept throwing everything they have until it's gone. The stakes felt very high during that scene because Kylo doesn't give a poo poo about strategy or the film's length. He's going to kill them no matter what it takes. It elevates him as an antagonist and as someone very different than Vader or Palpatine.

Also, it's a dope sequence. The Luke stuff is pitch perfect, Rose's line before she passes out is one of a few moments of the movie that transcends space magic and actually resonates with what it means to resist. The homage aspect is there, but once again things are muddled. It is a homage to Hoth, but it happens at the end of the film. The AT-ATs are completely meaningless compared to Luke. I think a lot of us expected Rey to be at her lowest point at the end of the film just like Luke was at Empire, but instead she seems to be at her most free and powerful. The film gives one last nod to broken expectations with her rescuing the team with the Falcon as opposed to her being rescued by it ala Luke. There is a lot there to subtly get across that Luke did find success through his failure. Rey isn't reliving Luke's trauma from Empire. She doesn't leave Kylo's attempt to neg her into the darkside broken, but empowered. It's a Star Wars movie where Star Wars is broken down and put back together.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Dec 18, 2017

# ¿ Dec 18, 2017 15:08

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

The one thing that breaks down the "It's an Empire/Jedi" remix is the lack of an analogue for Jabba's palace. But then I realized the casino is the analogue for Jabba's palace. The key difference is that it has the Arab harem/seedy jazz bar elements are replaced with white people stereotypes.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2017 17:43

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Waffles Inc. posted:

Which part of the Canto Bight sequence was an indictment of white people? Which countries in the real world are the largest concentrations of conspicuous consumption? Which country has the most lucrative horse races? You're making comparisons based upon things that the film does not show you

I'm not saying it's an indictment of white people. But there is an intended juxtaposition of expectations versus what we get. Canto Bight is set-up to invoke Obi-Wan's line about Mos Eisley. That's the gag. We're expecting the cantina or Jabba's palace. The cantina is sort of a mix of a seedy jazz club and an old west saloon while Jabba's palace is a combination of the notion of an Arab harem and a seedy jazz club. Instead we're getting something very posh and people in suits.

While Owl is right that Morocco is a touchpoint, the scene is meant to contrast with how the underbelly of Star Wars has usually been depicted. If you want to argue about the precision of using white people in my original post fine, but I think it's unfair to say that there is no comparison at all.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2017 18:06

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Cnut the Great posted:

so Luke is really still just an rear end in a top hat even though this is the moment when Luke is supposed to become not-an-rear end in a top hat again?

Luke's ultimate problem is that his mentors and the old Jedi order weren't perfect. He can't fully rectify the fact that people who mentored him like Yoda and Obi Wan were also huge gently caress-ups. He also can't forgive himself for being willing to kill Ben, if only for a moment. It's all rooted in that Luke can't rectify the notion that he's both a legend and a fallible human being. A lot of people were bothered with the outcome of TFA as sort of invalidating the events of the original trilogy, and I think Luke is also struggling with that idea. In the end, he finally gets over himself and accepts that he is only part of a broader story. Luke finds balance between the dogmatic static nature of the prequel Jedi and the Redditesque burn it all down philosophy of Kylo: Rebirth. Luke sees the failure of Obi-Wan and Yoda as informing the good he did and he sees his own failures as informing Rey. He is seeing beyond himself. The books metaphorically did burn in the sense that they don't mean the same thing they used to. They too are being reborn through Rey. Luke accepting this at the very end is what makes him not an rear end in a top hat. In rectifying his failures through Rey, he transcends his physical form and becomes purely Luke Skywalker the legend further emphasized by the ending where Luke is in the world of Star Wars where we see an in-universe Luke action figure.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2017 23:20

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Can we all agree the infinite Reys scene was dope as gently caress

# ¿ Dec 19, 2017 14:44

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Choom Gangster posted:

This movie is very enjoyable, and people are overreacting to that 'Mary Poppins' scene.

She's a half-frozen old woman, shes not going to gingerly fly through the debris like Superman, man. I was more upset about the air-lock tbh.

Honestly, I really wouldn't be surprised if Miyazaki was a big influence for Johnson. Despite being much more attractive, Leia really does resemble one of Miyazaki's old woman characters and the flying scene very much felt like a live version of something I'd see from one of his films. I personally enjoyed it a lot. I think it embraced a level of theatricality that avoided uncanny valley issues.

But it also spoke to the bigger idea of Johnson opening up the imagination space for what exactly the force is and what it's capable of in this movie. The force feels like it's filled with infinite possibility when Yoda speaks about it in Empire, but it's really only ever used for space parkour in the prequels.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2017 22:20

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I'd be down for her taking Kylo on with nothing but her staff. The moment where he swings down and her staff actually deflects his blade because of force magic I'll applaud while they internet tears itself apart.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2017 22:52

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Is there some sort of Google Alert I can set for when the internet decides that The Last Jedi is a really, really good movie and I can just read about how rad it is all day?

# ¿ Jul 5, 2018 03:46

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Blood Boils posted:

Google can't help you. Last Jedi is merely decent, better than Force Awakens, but only barely.

Nah, I'm pretty sure that The Last Jedi is a live action Miyazaki movie that has a pretty nuanced view of forgiveness and the difference between destruction and rebirth.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2018 04:24

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Neo Rasa posted:

Rian tried to have his cake and eat it too where we're meant to think Luke is rad and noble despite him being a huge dumbass.

I guess I just find what people are criticizing rings pretty true to real life. People make mistakes, including heroes. Yeah, Luke is a hero who stopped space nazis. He's also incredibly prideful, has a tendency to overly take things onto his own shoulders, and in a moment of weakness, considered doing something awful. But ya know, he still stopped the space nazis. Like this is how the world works. None of us are paragons of our values, and we never see the actual end of the story. We're imperfect people trying to do our best and hopefully setting the stage for someone else come along and do better. That's kind of what Luke learns in The Last Jedi, and it's a useful lesson.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2018 20:28

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Luke Skywalker doesn't stop the "space nazis". You're arguing that his failures are just missteps when counted against the greater good.

You error is claiming that Luke Skywalker trying to kill his nephew was simply a mistake, or as you put it, an imperfection. The truth is that he's not simply imperfect, he's corrupt and learns nothing.

Oh, my mistake.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2018 21:58

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I'm pretty sure that Kylo is a bad guy because he blew up a poo poo-ton of planets. Also, Luke proved that all his "end the cycle" stuff was bullshit. Kylo could have destroyed the rebels then and there, but he instead got caught up playing Skywalker drama. The film's ultimate statement on the darkside is that it doesn't really have anything of substance to it at all. That's the point of the cave scene. The darkside is nothing more but an endless reflection of the individual. Kylo isn't a revolutionary, he's a pissed off kid. Snoke isn't some space antichrist, he's just some rear end in a top hat who likes being in charge.

It's not really new to Star Wars. The whole revelation of the Emperor in the prequels is that he just some petty rear end in a top hat who wanted power, the Sith's revenger was always just a means to an end. Vader kills children because he's mad that some people killed his mom, but Kenobi successfully hides his son on Tatooine for nearly two decades because at the end of the day, Vader is never coming back down to free Jabba's sex slaves.

Darkside wielders are full of poo poo.

EDIT: Sorry my mistake, Kylo is the bad guy because he was complicit in blowing up a bunch of planets.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jul 6, 2018

# ¿ Jul 6, 2018 01:14

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Basebf555 posted:

Don't feel bad for Casper Van Dien. You're saying you wouldn't want to make a nice comfortable living by being in DTV schlock where you get to be like a bootleg Han Solo?

He's also a super hot millionaire.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2018 17:21

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I feel like TLJ doesn't get enough acknowledgment that a castle siege in a space is a really dope idea.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2018 23:30

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The �and son� part. Luke�s not just some guy. In Episode 5, Luke has split off from the Liberal-Republican Alliance and is leading his own group of freedom fighters. Vader is proposing that the leftists on both sides of the civil war unite against the emperor (who, it bears repeating, is Space Satan).

Go back to the prequels, and you get much elaboration on what this means via the harsh criticism of the Republic. Anakin was (made into) a fascist, but he was also the kid who dreamed not only of freeing the slaves but of building a system that would protect the weakest. Hence creating C3PO to help his mom, to suffer in solidarity with her. �We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.� Even later, Anakin is talking about compassion and is highly critical of the liberal democracy:

Anakin: �We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem. Agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and do it.�
Padme: "That's exactly what they do, the trouble is that people don't always agree."
Anakin: "Then they should be made to."
Padme: "By whom? Who's going to make them?"

People focus on craaazy fascist Anakin talking about dictatorship here, and ignore that Padme�s responses to him are horribly inadequate defences of the obviously-bad status quo. She�s making excuses for how the system doesn�t actually work - a system that literally serves Space Satan, and is about to declare war on the Space Mideast.

Padme can�t conceive of power to the people. In fact, she seems to treat the politicians and the people as synonymous. �Who should have power over the politicians?�, she�s saying, like she considers the idea ridiculous. Neither she nor Anakin can conceive of the proletariat being in charge.

I have two questions for you and they're legitimately not intended to be snide or pedantic. I'm actually curious.

1) Where does Anakin slaughtering the sand children because some of their people's actions against his mother fall into your reading?

2) Where does everything about Tatooine that we see in the original trilogy factor into your reading? It's not just that Vader fails to free the slaves on Tatooine, but he ignores Tatooine to an absurd degree. Luke is not hidden from Vader in any shape or form. His surname is not only preserved, but he is raised by known relatives to Vader. Obi-Wan uses Vader's complete indifference to the planet as the only disguise necessary.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2018 00:18

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Vader�s ghost is the Holy Spirit.

Taking it Kylo is St. Paul and Snoke is St. Peter?

Edit: Palpatine is John the Baptist?

EDIT #1a: poo poo, no, Maul is.

Edit #2: Count Dooku was Barabbas?

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Sep 2, 2018

# ¿ Sep 2, 2018 04:53

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Vader is a product of not only incredible psychological trauma but extensive cybernetic enhancement. The imagery of the creation scene is a mix of Frankenstein and Dr. Octopus from Spiderman 2. Vader is not only born from a collection of dead parts but is now in an uneasy relationship with �his� robotic limbs.

The imagery is evocative of Frankenstein, but it doesn't really meld with his interaction with the Emperor. Frankenstein's Monster despite being dead limbs has literally no connection to any old self. He's essentially an infant, and in the Universal film reflective of Frankenstein creating a baby without a woman, at odds with society's pressure for him to marry a woman and be normal. I think you can argue that there is something to the last bit in that it's the Emperor reclaiming his son from Shmi and remaking him entirely how he wants, but Vader's actions do not depict him as something born new.

The first thing that we see from Anakin is him ask about Padme and cry out in regret over her death. I'm on board with the notion that Vader and Anakin are different people, but I'm not sure if that switch is ever clear. The moment depicts Vader not born form ideology or sacrifice, but from Anakin just no longer having anything to really live for besides taking out his aggression on the universe.

Also, you're operating with like a Wikipedia understanding of Christianity on this one.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Sep 2, 2018

# ¿ Sep 2, 2018 12:50

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

turn left hillary!! noo posted:

Anakin finally dies, and Vader is truly born, when he hears of Padme's death. That's the analogous "lightning" moment as Palpatine laughs exultantly - he might as well be saying "It's alive!"

I think when we treat the moment in the larger trilogy, the notion that Anakin ever really died is false.

I think we're also talking about the moment from Frankenstein more from memory than what actually happens in the film. The it's alive moment is declaration of happiness from someone who others see as having done something monstrous. Regardless, Frankenstein is happy in the moment.

Palpatine has a different reaction. As much as the scene is mocked for the "No!" There is some great acting on the Emperor. There is something almost warm and fatherly about him when he asks Vader if he can hear him, but you can see him recoil a bit when he hears about Padme. It reads to me as concern that Vader is still Anakin.

I do think you're right that the key moment is when he gets him to take on responsibility for Padme's death, but once again, it's really different from the "It's alive" moment. Frankenstein's declaration is out of accomplishment and love. Palpatine gives a sinister smile behind Vader. In his mind, he has snuffed out Anakin and fully corrupted him, but he's wrong.

Literally the second that Vader finds out that one of his kids is alive, he's willing to kill the Emperor. I think this is getting a bit circular because I think this train of thought is what SMG arguing against. To be clear, I don't think anyone is trying to claim that ROTS is trying to be directly analogous to the Frankenstein film, but using the events of that film to justify reads on ROTS isn't really fruitful.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2018 14:56

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Mameluke posted:

This is a particularly great point: how hosed up is it that Vader goes from wanting to free the slaves to throwing a bone to one of Tatooine's most repellent slaveowners?

I really do love the ultimate gag of the prequels. Dooku and Maul actually believed in things, but ultimately get used by Space Mitch McConnell who was just trying to centralize power for himself. People talk about Snoke being some disappointment when the big bad guy of the first six movies was just some bureaucrat dipshit. What makes Palpatine a fun villain is that he just uses people's anger to get his way. He nearly does it again to Luke in Return of the Jedi. It doesn't matter if Dooku is right about the Republic or Anakin is right to want to free the slaves or Luke is right to want to defend his friends. In the world of Star Wars, anger and hatred will ultimately blind you--or as The Last Jedi depicts, lead you to an echo chamber where all that exists is reflections of yourself extending out forever.

At least Dooku and Maul go out still maintaining some sense of scruples or purpose. Vader doesn't even know what he's loving doing anymore by the OT.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2018 02:44

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

porfiria posted:

Is TFA just clearly better than TLJ?

TFA is okay, but The Last Jedi is a legitimately good movie.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2019 00:11

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Milkfred E. Moore posted:

no it's not. the script is garbage, for one.

Nah, it's a fine script. Not necessarily clever in terms of dialogue, but it's a good story that seeks to mirror the Empire Strikes Back not through parallelism, but by actually trying to create the same unexpected shift to the audience's expectations as Empire. It's a script that doesn't fear allowing its cast to change or even be humbled. It's all made by the better by not being as recursive as previous films, getting back to the series's roots of using other films to influence it, not concerning itself with being part of a franchise, and being visually striking.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2019 01:15

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Martman posted:

It does seem hard to combine "mirrors ESB by subverting expectations" and "doesn't concern itself with being part of a franchise."

What I mean by not concerning itself with "being part of a franchise" is that there never feels like concern about leaving the table set up for a sequel. It tells its story within the scope of a single film and does so with a lack of restraint.

Milkfred E. Moore posted:

yeah, you've got a long way to go to beat jivjov's gimmick posting

No, I really just think it's a good movie.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2019 03:47

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

For what it's worth, it's actually the long pointed fingers that put Gunray over the top for me and make it so I would be shocked if Lucas at no point saw a Fu Manchu resemblance to Newt Gunray.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2019 21:10

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

ruddiger posted:

Pee Wee Herman and his supporting cast are the same types of personality, but their childish ~~foolishness~~ innocence is seen as a virtue. Cowboy Curtis will gently caress you up if you tried calling him a foolish child.

It's not totally relevant to the ongoing debates, but Birth of an Industry is a pretty good book that makes a strong argument that a lot of early animation is actually rooted in black face, that the modern childish foolish innocence is rooted in minstrel show characters where black people were portrayed as sort of child-men. And--not making accusations--but a lot of those performers would defend their characters as being positive portrayals of blacks having a childish purity to them.

I don't think this take is particularly relevant because it essentially casts everything from Oswald the Lucky Rabbit to Pee Wee to Sponge Bob Square Pants as descendant from minstrel. But I will say is that when a character seems coded or rooted in Blackness or West Indian culture like many people read Jar Jar to be, I think there is a reason why his childlike nature can further rub people the wrong way.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Feb 21, 2019

# ¿ Feb 21, 2019 03:12

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

For what it's worth, the circular debates around yellow face and accents are wrongheaded because no, the film is not technically operating in yellow face and there is nothing wrong with aliens having "Asian" accents.

The issue is that Jabba the Hutt is not really a stand in for Arab or Persian peoples and it would be insane to claim he was. But you're also wrong if you're going to claim that The Sheik or similar stories had no impact on the sexual imperilment of Leia. On a similar note, it's also kind of weird to think that George Lucas-- who literally cast Christopher Lee to play Space Dracula--was completely unaware that his aliens with slanted irises, long pointy fingers, robes, and accents that resembled "Asian" accents at least have an aesthetic parallel to Fu Manchu.

Lucas is a huge nerd who uses stuff he used as a kid in his big adventure stories. But a lot of the stuff he's drawing from is mad racist.

Still, like I said, Jabba the Hutt really can't credibly be seen as any actual strike against Arab or Persian culture despite the use of a harem. Newt Gunray is merely aesthetically Fu Manchu--the rest of the film really doesn't have the hallmarks of Yellow Peril or even the Fu Manchu character.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Feb 21, 2019

# ¿ Feb 21, 2019 03:38

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

The problem isn't accents so much as what the accents are accompanying. An example outside of Star Wars would be the "Under the Sea" song from The Little Mermaid. There is no problem with the character of Sebastian having a West Indian accent. But when you have him singing a calypso song about how people on the shore work all the time while the fish play around all day--something that doesn't fully fit what we've seen in the film--it is taking this non-racial character of a crab and applying stereotypes of West Indian Blacks as lazy and work averse to the character.

I think Jar-Jar is interesting because I don't think Best was really trying to go for a Caribbean/West Indian accent. When you really listen to Jar-Jar in general, he sounds more like a muppet than a human as opposed to Sebastian who has a very clear human accent that he is supposed to be portraying. I think the argument people were using for Gunray actually applies to Jar Jar--his accent is an alien one, not a human one. Whereas the idea of the Romanian/Thai accent doesn't really help the case for Gunray. Remember Lucas casts Christopher Lee who famously played both Dracula and Fu Manchu. Combining a Dracula accent with a Thai accent doesn't really persuade me to think Lucas wasn't going for a Manchu homage with Gunray albeit very superficially.

I think for a lot of people there are a few elements that come together to really hurt Jar Jar: His broken English and use of words like "meesa," his submissive nature--He immediately tells the Jedi that he's their servant and does so happily even when the Jedi put his life in danger--and his bafoonish nature in general reminded folks of minstrel portrayals of Black people.

It's also a matter of larger context. As I mentioned before, it's really hard to argue that Jabba's palace is not taking roots in racist media like The Sheik or other stories of Arab or Persian harems. It's been long pointed out that Lawrence of Arabia weighs heavily over Star Wars as a major influence. It's this influence that has made people raise their eyebrow at terms like "sand people" in a film that otherwise portrays all the humans on Tatooine as white Americans or Brits.

Star Wars is working with dicey roots. It has a history of recycling racial stereotypes or making insensitive decisions. In Phantom Menace you have one character who at least has some roots to Fu Manchu, a subservient bafoon who speaks in broken English, and a greedy alien with a hooked nose who would in the next film grow a beard and wear a hat. It's coming from a series that has included harems and despite having a planet clearly rooted in Lucas's lover for Lawerence of Arabia cast the human inhabitants as either cowboys or Space American Graffiti characters while including violent and cowardly "Sand People."

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Feb 21, 2019

# ¿ Feb 21, 2019 15:15

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Here's the issue that's been hovering over everything: Fu Manchu is a great fuckin' character. He has an enduring appeal, which is why he appears (sometimes under different names) in Grindhouse, Iron Man 3, Black Dynamite, etc.. And the fun with the character is precisely that he is fully aware of the artifice, almost invariably an actor deliberately performing as this confrontational camp parody of orientalism.

While I think some of you read of the character can be found in the Christopher Lee films, I disagree on a couple of points:

1) The Christopher Lee films and take on the character are inherently racist because of Lee appearing in Yellow Face.

2) Fu Manchu definitely was not born out of irony or camp. That revision is silly and diminishes the discrimination faced by Asians in Europe and in North America during the last few centuries and how much Yellow Peril contributed to that.

You're right that Manchu has an enduring appeal in the broader sense that he really is the fore-bearer to the idea of the modern notion of a supervillain. Removing the racial elements for a moment, he is what I think a lot of people imagine Professor Moriarty to be in the original Holmes novels. Most modern takes on the character are really a white Manchu more than they are Moriarty as originally depicted.
Still man, saying "Fu Manchu is a great fuckin' character" is pretty extra.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 21, 2019

# ¿ Feb 21, 2019 18:08

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Well he is that, but he�s also got elements of a classic wolfman design (though rendered more gentle).

It�s like if Bigfoot got bit by a weredog, and the transformation made him friendlier.

So, Star Wars's got multiple wolfmen, a dracula, a dracula who is also sometimes a frankenstein, and multiple creatures from the black lagoon.

My question is will Abrams let us down and not include a mummy to truly complete the Star Wars saga?

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Feb 23, 2019

# ¿ Feb 23, 2019 23:07

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I think the casino scene is a shame because especially in this behind the footage stuff is at least somewhat inspired by the bathhouse scene in Spirited Away. But it really doesn't hit the mark.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2019 03:22

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

It really puts the Marcia Lucas urban legend to rest

You don�t have to throw Marcia Lucas under the bus to support your larger point. By all accounts, Marcia had a huge impact on the original Star Wars.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2019 23:12

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Obviously the editor of Star Wars had an impact on Star Wars.

The urban legend is that Star Wars was absolute garbage until Maria Lucas stepped in and fixed it with editing.

I think some people might have a hyperbolic vision of her sitting alone in an editing bay recreating the movie from her bumbling husband.

But the woman by George Lucas�s account alone came up with the idea of killing Ben Kenobi, made a narratively more exciting finale through editing, was a driving force for keeping a stable set according to Hamill, and was instrumental in fixing an original cut that Lucas was unhappy with shouldn�t be described as an urban legend.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2019 00:14

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Literacy and understanding of craft are not the same thing.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2019 23:19

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SMG, I think the editing stuff is valid, but you should still find another word besides "literacy" to describe what you're trying to say.

Broadly when we talk about literacy we just mean ability to read. You're breaking it down as literacy means understanding a language. However, it means more than that. The main thing we mean when we say literacy is that we can understand a text on a literal level and infer subtext. The power of this ability comes in the fact that we can derive meaning from things we don't fully understand on a literal level (A word we've never heard before or an allusion to 8th century architecture isn't much a bother if we have a wholistic understanding of a text).

People not being bothered by the weak editing you're pointing out is because they are literate. Actual literacy means that readers/viewers are on some level collaborative with the author. The things you say make sense, but people do the mental leg work in the moment to help support the film. It has to be pretty egregious editing to actually confuse a reader. I'm not saying that good editing doesn't matter. It does matter because good editing means better communication to the reader/viewer. But the craft behind that is often invisible in the moment. Readers and viewers don't derive understanding from dissection of the editing.

In short, a reader doesn't need to understand the meter of a poem to understand, that doesn't mean the meter doesn't matter, and the poet sure should understand the meter of their own work.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2019 14:08

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Schwarzwald posted:

You've described The Phantom Menace.

Honestly, I feel like he described The Last Jedi. While there's technically a chase happening, the movie is essentially a castle siege.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2019 01:53

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Are there any examples of common noun switches in Star Wars like youngling? It seemed kind of out of place.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2019 16:40

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

It's so busy, I have no idea what to look at.

The wall? The door? They should put a big, glowing circle around the part I'm supposed to look at.

(The above shot is of a miniature, as it happens.)

Honestly, as a still, my eye actually goes back and forth between the holographic projection and two shadowy figures talking in front of the table.

# ¿ Aug 12, 2019 21:36

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Brother Entropy posted:

there was already a lot of tattooine in ep 1, better to not further encourage any 'oh only like 4 planets in the whole galaxy matter' feelings

To be fair though, Tatooine didn't really have to be in the prequels.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 19:41

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

Brother Entropy posted:

eh it makes a little more sense there with luke's aunt and uncle living there at the start of ANH, it's not unreasonable that his dad and grandmother had roots there too

Yeah, I get that...

But Owen just moving there because he's in space witness protection feels a lot less sweaty than Leia being the daughter of a queen, but her own royal title being completely unrelated.

Forced isn't the right word, but the methods in which Leia and Luke find their respective homes feels so disconnected from the story. It felt like in Episode I they kind of set these clear roots of how we get there (Anakin on Tatooine and Padame being a princess), but the former connection still ends up feeling murky and the latter connection ends up being a bit of a non-sequitur.

But honestly it's all rooted in the fact that Luke and Leia being siblings was a mistake.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 21:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 02:02

Timeless Appeal: May 28, 2006

I really like The Last Jedi, but admit it has flaws and I get why it's offputting.

But the Rian Johnson hate is bizarre.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2019 04:27

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: 4000 posts later we are no closer to consensus

«‹›2 »