|
Spoilers for the film are in this thread, read at your own peril if you have not seen the movie. No more spoiler tags from page 20 |
No it's actually a good argument because it explains why star wars never had a problem with overly convenient writing. Kids don't care about that at all. Nobody cared in the OT. Now it's all of a sudden a problem. I wonder why that is. I am all for pointing out writing flaws when it's obviously lazy, but i think it's more than stupid to not apply the same standard for the OT as well at that point. Does that mean that every single flaw one can point out falls into that category? No! But a lot of it kinda does. I never was a big star wars fan because these movies are overhyped to the max. But now hardcore fans are just so ridiculous with their claims and actions (there were petitions to reshoot the movie or make it so it's not canon) that i have to wonder if the obsession isn't going a little bit too far. It's almost like Star Wars the franchise is a religion :/
|
On December 29 2017 01:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: No it's actually a good argument because it explains why star wars never had a problem with overly convenient writing. Kids don't care about that at all. Nobody cared in the OT. Now it's all of a sudden a problem. I wonder why that is. I am all for pointing out writing flaws when it's obviously lazy, but i think it's more than stupid to not apply the same standard for the OT as well at that point. Does that mean that every single flaw one can point out falls into that category? No! But a lot of it kinda does. I never was a big star wars fan because these movies are overhyped to the max. But now hardcore fans are just so ridiculous with their claims and actions (there were petitions to reshoot the movie or make it so it's not canon) that i have to wonder if the obsession isn't going a little bit too far. It's almost like Star Wars the franchise is a religion :/
Cut Rose from this film and have Poe be tagging along with Finn the whole time and the movie is instantly better. You eliminate the crap scenes with purple hair and Poe, you eliminate the stupid pointless mutiny, you eliminate all the shoehorned animal cruelty/war profiteering crap, and you have the two characters who work well together actually together.
Also Finn might be a little less annoying and juvenile this way. I can hope at least. Must suck to be the only black main character and your character is an idiotic 13 year old with a crush.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
“It’s for children” is definitely not an argument justifying any form of badness. Children aren’t stupid and they don’t benefit from a plot that is stupid. A feel-good plot where no one dies at the end, that’s more akin to what might make it for kids. The OT definitely has that aspect going for it. Jar Jar poop jokes isn’t “kid friendly” as much as it is just bad writing. Same with any plots that are just ridiculously stupid and that are not at all believable as here.
|
The argument that Star Wars is for kids, ( a multi billion franchise btw), to excuse very bad writing is just stupid, it is not even about SW fans or not, if a movie has bad writing, bad acting, and is full of plot holes, it is just a bad movie, simple as that. SW Rebels is even more childish than these new movies but you can see the clear difference of quality.
|
On December 29 2017 01:18 Velr wrote: Its designed for children is not an argument.
Good stuff for children isn't obvious or dumb, its just not overly sarcastic/ironic.
The problem also wasn't the message (that only comes up in the totally useless part of the movie) but how hamfisted it was shoved in. You can disagree wether it was useful, well done, or whatever. That's not what i am argueing about, but why it is there.
Anyways it is not so much about being obvious, dumb, or whatever, but being comprehensible, accessible and blunt while keeping the format free by being delivered very fast. The movie shows you animal abuse. and condemns it. You don't need to drag it out, but it's fine to be there. It sets a few values that a kid can identify as good to the guys he is cheering for. For an adult, it feels cheap because it is, it is done this way to let the kids have fun while giving some morals along the way.
I haven't comented much in the problems the script has, because it does have glaring problems. It also doesn't flesh out plenty of the ideas that i find interesting for star wars which appear in the EU, like arms dealers/scum of the galaxy and jedis/sith holding power leads to imbalance and therefore it results in conflict for balance, but i acknowledge that i see this from the prysm of an adult and hope the movies outside the trilogy will deliver in these grounds (i have little faith in the Han Solo movie tho).
There is one that bothers me tho, that is people complaining about Luke being a "coward".
On December 29 2017 02:47 palexhur wrote: The argument that Star Wars is for kids, ( a multi billion franchise btw), to excuse very bad writing is just stupid, it is not even about SW fans or not, if a movie has bad writing, bad acting, and is full of plot holes, it is just a bad movie, simple as that. SW Rebels is even more childish than these new movies but you can see the clear difference of quality.
That's not what i said.
|
Canada10904 Posts
On December 28 2017 21:36 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 04:09 Falling wrote:If Finn gets a pass with the military training and baton, why doesn't Rey's staff offer the same preparation? He doesn't. I think it's stupid that they keep him giving him melee weapons. Guns and grenades worked well enough in Rogue One. Give that man a firefight and something to do, something to believe, something to fight for. Tragically underused in this film. Oh, listening around, I think I'm closing in on a main reason I didn't like Rose as a character beyond line delivery. From another reviewer- she's preachy and inconsistent. I'm not sure about the inconsistent part yet, preachy, yeah. That tracks. When I wanted to add a Serious Idea, I used to throw it in really badly and make tangential preachy subplots or characters. It's like, thanks Hollywood, I'll be sure to fight the 1%ers with vandalism, not abuse or kill cute animals... I'll even do one better and not abuse kids (too soon?) Regardless of why its there, it's not integrated well at all. Animal abuse is tangential to anything going on in the rest of the plot (themes of the dangers of heroism) and it is dropped immediately anyways. War profiteering is an interesting angle, but is dropped immediately after one destructive ride through town. It's not integrated and so it stands out like a sore thumb. They told us about it once, never showed anything, and then it's like it never happened. I hated the plot for its didactic nature. But it's Rose that believes all those things, and so while I couldn't identify it immediately, she is the preachy character. Finn is just there for the ride. And honestly, her way of righting wrong is really lame. (I just want to punch them in the face. Really?) Answer to the bolded part. I can understand why you can dislike it. But it is a movie designed for children. The didactic part is and should be present on any movie designed for children. I simply enjoyed it through the parts that hit the nostalgic fan that i am and be done with it. I don't have big expectations on the trilogy being good movies for me because i am an adult already, so i adjust my expectations. The trilogy is not being done to push the story forward, but to hit a new generation with Star Wars merchandising right to the face. and @RedViper I think you are wrong on both counts. Must be didactic? Says who? This is exactly what led to Tom Brown School Days stories. The morals are different, but the mentality is the same- stories are primarily vehicles for teaching, not for storytelling. Also, the idea that kids are dumb and therefore lower effort is required. Both ideas are what Tolkien and Lewis fought against. There's a reason Dr Seuss and Bill Pete stand head and shoulders above the rest of the children's authors- they didn't think children are rubes. I'm convinced that there is a whole slew talentless hacks making low quality stories because they are children. But it's not so much that children can't identify good stories if they are immersed and exposed to them- they just aren't able to articulate why they like what they like. Furthermore, the best children stories are ones that hold up when one comes back as an older and find that it still is a darn good yarn- something that is not true for most modern children films (Smurf and Chipmunk sequels. Give me 80s Don Bluth, please. Disney's films have varied in quality, but most of their films hold up under their own internal logic. For children is not the same as a lower standard of internal consistency.)
I'm not so sure the original Star Wars was intended only for children, and the best children stories hit both children and adults in different ways (think Pixar's Incredibles). I read some article that was claiming that the themes of the movies contrast from the Originals because it's the difference between the hopeful optimism of the Boomers (Lucas gen) and the cynical subversive Gen X. B.S. Well, I mean, true that is what Gen X is know for. But has anyone seen the context that Lucas was making his Star Wars films? I've seen those other sci fi's- bleak for the most part: Zardoz, Logan's Run, Silent Running, the Omega Man, hell even Lucas' own THX 1138 was as bleak as anything. Star Wars entered as an intentional hopeful counterpoint to all the depressing films that were the zeitgeist of the day. It was accessible for children, but not only for children. I think it's a poor defence for a bad story as it essentially cedes the ground that it is an inherently good story, but makes the more cynical claim: it's passable for children because they don't know any better.
|
I just find it hilarious that noone of you uses the same standard for the OT is all. Personally i don't even agree that stories for children "have to be dumb", but the point is that things made for children have a lot more convenient writing. This starts with fairytales and ends with sunday morning cartoons. Nobody gave a damn when the deathstar could be destroyed in a nonsensical way. Nobody gave a damn when forceghosts were used whenever the plot demanded it but never when it would have been just as useful for various reasons. Nobody gave a damn when the empire got beaten by little teddy bears. Nobody gave a damn that Luke's plan was completely stupid when saving Han. Same for Darth Vader's plan in ESB to get Luke.
On December 29 2017 02:47 palexhur wrote: The argument that Star Wars is for kids, ( a multi billion franchise btw), to excuse very bad writing is just stupid, it is not even about SW fans or not, if a movie has bad writing, bad acting, and is full of plot holes, it is just a bad movie, simple as that. SW Rebels is even more childish than these new movies but you can see the clear difference of quality.
Yeah the OT had quite a bit of bad acting, especially Mark Hamill was really mediocre. Thankfully every new actor has a higher standard these days. I don't even know why i argue this though, none of the star wars movies is good enough to make it worth it.
|
Canada10904 Posts
"Children are regarded as being at any rate a distinct literary species, and the production of books that cater for their supposedly odd and alien taste has become an industry; almost a heavy one.
This theory does not seem to me to be borne out by the facts. For one thing, there is no literary taste common among all children. ..
We can approach the matter in a different way by drawing up a list of books which, I am told, have been generally liked by the young. I suppose Aesop, the Arabian Nights, Gulliver, Robinson Crusoe, Treasure Island, Peter Rabbit, and The Wind in the Willows would be a reasonable choice. Only the last three were written for children, and those three are read with pleasure by many adults. I, who disliked The Arabian Nights as a child, dislike them still."
Those stories from Greek or Norse mythology, from Homer, from Spenser, or from folklore which children (but by no means all children) read with delight were once the delight of everyone. ...
Even the fairy tale proprement dit was not originally intended for children; it was told and enjoyed in (of all places) the court of Louis XIV. As Professor Tolkien has pointed out, it gravitated to the nursery when it went out of fashion among the grown-ups, just as old-fashioned furniture gravitated to the nursery. ... Surely it would be less arrogant, and truer to the evidence, to say that the peculiarity of child readers is that they are not peculiear. It is we who are peculiar. Fashions in literary taste come and go among adults, and every period has its own shibboleths. These, when good, do not improve the taste of children, and, when bad, do not corrupt it; for children read only to enjoy. Of course their limited vocabulary and general ignorance make some books unintelligible to them. But apart from that, juvenile taste is simply human taste, going on from age to age, silly with a universal silliness or wise with a universal wisdom, regardless of modes, movements, and literary revolutions." (Last emphasis mine)
The literary world of today is little interested in the narrative art as such; it is preoccupied with technical novelties and with 'ideas', by which it means not literary, but social or psychological, ideas.
And the conclusion:
It follows that there are now tow very different sorts of 'writers for children'. The wrong sort that believe that children are 'a distinct race'. They carefully 'make up' the tastes of these odd creatures... They dish up not what they like themselves but what that race is supposed to like. Educational and moral, as well as commercial, motives may come in.
The right sort work from the common, universally human, ground they share with the children, and indeed with countless adults. They label their books "For Children" because children are the only market now recognized for the books, they, anyway, want to write.
Excerpts from CS Lewis' On Juvenile Tastes essay. Lots of great insight and criticisms that, I believe just as applicable to the modern film industry for children as it was on the literary industry for children in the 50s.
edit Tearing down a different film, doesn't strengthen any argument on the quality of the film in question. It only continues to concede that the current story is of low quality and then reveal that you had a pretty low view of the first films.
|
Canada10904 Posts
I just find it hilarious that noone of you uses the same standard for the OT is all. It's not really. There's a useful concept worth introducing here, that Shamus Young articulated: Story Collapse.
So his first blog post talked about that you don't need a flawless story: Plot Holes Part 1: Trust in the Storyteller The key is this:
Do you trust the writer? Do you believe they are playing by the rules they’ve established? When something implausible happens, this creates tension. Not tension in the story, but tension in the viewer. How you resolve that tension depends on how much you trust the storyteller. Do you question the veracity of the story, or do you question what you think you know about the world of the story? Did they make a mistake, or are you not giving them enough credit?
This trust becomes really important when the audience is presented with something that doesn’t seem to follow naturally. Maybe it’s a plot hole. Maybe not. But something jumps out at the viewer. Hey! This character isn’t acting according to their stated goals, therefore…
A: …I must have missed something earlier. Or maybe this will be explained later. Maybe this will even pay off in a later reveal.
OR:
B: …THIS STORY IS STUPID.
Here’s the thing: It’s the job of the storyteller to create and maintain that trust. Talking about how to build trust is like talking about how to build creativity or enthusiasm. It’s not really something you can force. Let us agree that it’s a lot of work to get a stranger to trust you, and even harder if you’ve already proven untrustworthy in the past.
(Emphasis mine)
So then Part II talks about when that all collapses Plot Holes Part 2: Story Collapse
Trust matters
One thing I find really interesting is how variable our tolerance for plot holes is, even to the point where we can’t agree on what they are or if they matter. He runs through several different examples of how one thing will bother one person more than another.
Shamus then quotes Tolkien:
Inside [the story], what [the author] relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. This, Shamus argues is Story Collapse
It’s the point at which you’re ejected from the story and are stuck outside looking in. It’s the Blue Screen of Death of storytelling,
A break in trust brings scrutiny. Scrutiny uncovers more problems. Trying to explain or understand problems leads to more problems and more questions. Eventually it hits some kind of critical mass and we have story collapse. Then we go back and point to all the plot holes we uncovered while we were trying to mentally triage the problems with the story.
Getting back to what Film Crit Hulk was talking about in his article: He suggested that the real problem isn’t plot holes, but thematic or emotional failures. Looking back over games where I really raged out over plot holes, I see they also failed thematically or emotionally. They failed to resonate or ring true.
I’m not saying that logic, continuity, and clarity don’t matter. They do. But if we’re noticing these things it might be a sign the story has already failed us on a more important and fundamental level. This is an idea that I’ve been working on for a few days now. I keep looking over old broken stories and tracing them back to their failure points, looking for the source of the story collapse. It’s an interesting exercise.
I think this is very true. This is the first film I've seen in theatres, when the Story Collapsed on me. I had a very real recognition (not decision, but recognition) that I was enjoying nothing of what I was seeing and that all I could see was a Frankenstein version of Empire and Return- the stitching holding the old, dead stories together were altogether too visible to me. No matter how, I tried to get back into, I really did feel like I was on the outside looking in. They briefly got me back in for the climax, but for most of the middle I was out. For other people, the story never collapsed, their tolerance to such things was different than mine. But I will contend that this film will not age will. Repeat viewings will not be kind to this one in the long run because its flaws are too great.
Yes, the original has flaws; I know it all too well, as I have spent time with my friends picking apart what the original plan for Luke actually was (most of the problems stem from the adhoc nature of the Trilogy- Darth Vader and Anakin were only combined together as characters in between A New Hope and Empire Strikes back. So yes, there are flaws, but Lucas built the trust needed that it remains a strong story to this day (as long as the people obsessed with Special FX steer clear of it. I hate criticisms that amount to: everything is so old. Yes, and black and white films mostly used sound stages. So what?)
|
Tearing down a different film, doesn't strengthen any argument on the quality of the film in question. It only continues to concede that the current story is of low quality and then reveal that you had a pretty low view of the first films.
Quality is completely relative. It only works when we compare it to something else. So if we accept the premise that all the star wars movies are about the same (let's neglect the prequels right now) then it either means that the OT is overhyped or the sequels are undervalued. Also filmmaking isn't just about "the story", the main plot is only a tiny fraction of what makes a movie a movie. For film a lot of different artistic aspects come together, it's visuals, sound and writing. These have a lot of sub categories. One can argue that the writing is the most important part but this kinda blurrs in filmmaking because other aspects can strengthen the writing a lot (like good performances, good editing, music, whatever really) or to say it differently, all these things work together. Star Wars movies are fine blockbusters, the OT created a franchise which is a substitute religion for a lot of people and it shows.
|
The argument that these are movies are for children has been bankrupt ever since Episode I's central plot was about political negotiations for trade routes and/or when Anakin murdered "the women and the children too". Its equally laughable in this movie where a person is thrown into a blender offscreen and parts of his body explode onscreen.
|
Canada10904 Posts
On December 29 2017 05:33 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +Tearing down a different film, doesn't strengthen any argument on the quality of the film in question. It only continues to concede that the current story is of low quality and then reveal that you had a pretty low view of the first films.
Quality is completely relative. It only works when we compare it to something else. So if we accept the premise that all the star wars movies are about the same (let's neglect the prequels right now) then it either means that the OT is overhyped or the sequels are undervalued. Also filmmaking isn't just about "the story", the main plot is only a tiny fraction of what makes a movie a movie. For film a lot of different artistic aspects come together, it's visuals, sound and writing. These have a lot of sub categories. One can argue that the writing is the most important part but this kinda blurrs in filmmaking because other aspects can strengthen the writing a lot (like good performances, good editing, music, whatever really) or to say it differently, all these things work together. Star Wars movies are fine blockbusters, the OT created a franchise which is a substitute religion for a lot of people and it shows. Why would I accept as a premise that the OT and The Last Jedi are of equal quality when it is the very thing that I am arguing against? Saying one thing is of higher quality than another is not the same thing as treating it as a religion. No more than if you claimed the Eye of Aragon was of equal quality to the Lord of the Rings. If I set out to prove that the Eye of Aragon is incompetently told, with no command of the English language and certainly no conception on how to write a metaphor or simile that is not unintentionally funny, the counter to that is not 'you just think Lord of the Rings as your religion.' Step off. That's not an analytical argument, that's a presumptuous ad hominem.
I don't think quality is entirely or even mainly relative. Enjoyment may be, but not quality. That's why I bring up things like Story Collapse- it hinges on the idea of internal consistency. That's something not relative or comparative, except by itself. What are the rules set up in the story and does the story remain consistent in its own rules, or does it have a very good reason to break it.
There's also things like Chekhov's Gun, which I think Force Awakens is now guilty of breaking because of The Last Jedi's lack of delivery. "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." I would say this is true of Luke's lightsaber, Rey's ancestory, the map to find Luke that Luke left (a central mystery in the first film), the Knights of Ren, Snokes, etc. The Last Jedi decides to crumple up all those promises and throw them away. I don't mind that Rey has no parentage worth knowing... so don't create that question for me. I don't care if we never learn about the lightsaber... so don't make a significant moment in the first film. Leave it on Bespin. It's just straight up bad storytelling to do this sort of thing. I mean, I already thought the map was not a good plot point in the first film, and this undercuts that there was any purpose to it at all. Luke went to die alone. Why would he make a convoluted map hunt on where to find him?
People seem delighted that it goes in unexpected directions, but surprising is not good on its own, only if it is properly set up. I, too, can add surprising things: Space Bunnies! The Force was a figment of everyone's imagination! It was all a dream! Rey was dead the entire time! Kylo Ren is actually Darth Jar Jar Binks! But all of these would be objectively bad because if we look back there were no clues hidden in plain sight (see Patrick Rothfuss' The Princess and Mr Wiffles for this sort of surprise ending done right). This isn't clever subversion, this is just throwing away the plot from the previous film. I've already seen this mistake done over and over in the Bantam years of the EU. I'm not particularly keen on seeing it play out again, where every writer/ director carves their own path and ignores whatever happened before.
It's also known as fulfilling the promises made to your readers: http://www.writingexcuses.com/2011/01/09/writing-excuses-5-19-fulfilling-promises-to-your-readers/ If you have no intention of fulfilling your promises, don't make them in the first place because it will be an ultimately be an unsatisfying experience.
|
Why would I accept as a premise that the OT and The Last Jedi are of equal quality when it is the very thing that I am arguing against? Saying one thing is of higher quality than another is not the same thing as treating it as a religion. No more than if you claimed the Eye of Aragon was of equal quality to the Lord of the Rings. If I set out to prove that the Eye of Aragon is incompetently told, with no command of the English language and certainly no conception on how to write a metaphor or simile that is not unintentionally funny, the counter to that is not 'you just think Lord of the Rings as your religion.' Step off. That's not an analytical argument, that's a presumptuous ad hominem.
I don't think quality is entirely or even mainly relative. Enjoyment may be, but not quality. That's why I bring up things like Story Collapse- it hinges on the idea of internal consistency. That's something not relative or comparative, except by itself. What are the rules set up in the story and does the story remain consistent in its own rules, or does it have a very good reason to break it. No you misunderstood, i am fully aware that you won't accept the premise, i was merely suggesting that it's not necessarily me dragging down the OT, it could also be the other way around. Though yes realistically it would mean to say that the OT isn't as good as people say it is. That these movies aren't masterpieces and not even close. I simply haven't seen any real arguments agains the sequels which wouldn't also work on a similar level against the OT. You say that's just me bringing down other movies to defend the new ones, well call it defending or being realistic, idc really. The point is that i think people have a big double standard regarding the old and new movies. Why? Because the old ones have a special place in their consciousness, it created everything and flaws don't matter. It isn't allowed to be "attacked". It just reminds me of religious people to an extent. (especially because a large amount of criticism can be boiled down to people being disappointed in the direction based on preconceived bullet points they had built in their mind) Quality is definitely relative, if you don't have something superior to compare it to it's simply the best. If you have nothing worse to compare it to it is simply the worst. The standard of "good" and "bad" depends on relative quality, not absolute one. It's not surprising that you don't care about my point that film is more than just writing (and writing is more than just things people criticize TLJ for atm), people never really wanna talk about that. But as i said before, i am not even sure why i am even arguing this case. I don't think TLJ (just like all the other star wars movies) is particularly great. If you want to argue about the new blade runner instead that would probably be more interesting
|
Canada10904 Posts
I don't see how my arguments could be used against the Originals. The villains are competent and impressive. They set up the power of the Empire in their opening scenes very efficiently rather than undercutting it at every step. The rebel commanders somehow seem competent despite having less screen time. The plotlines are cohesive and sensible. The promises it starts out with are delivered in the end. We don't have time wasting plots because we have surplus characters. The deaths are meaningful- compare Obi Wan vs Luke. (Kill him the first time, or save the ascendancy for the third. Dying thirty seconds after 'See you around, kid' makes the death meaningless.)
The closest I can think is that is that Phasma and Boba Fett are somewhat comparable in their unimpressive deaths, but the OT had the good sense to only make that mistake once. And then the Obi Wan and Vader fight doesn't hold up so well, but I still think it works well narratively- the archetype sacrifice- it's just no longer a spectacle as it no doubt was in the 70's.
And sure, a movie isn't just about writing, but it was so obviously bad to me that it overwhelmed anything else about it as far as I was concerned.
I don't think TLJ (just like all the other star wars movies) is particularly great. Well, that is what I'm looking for. I still want to like this movie. But the only arguments forthcoming is that the other Star Wars films were also flawed. That's pretty irrelevant to me because I either already like or dislike them, and I have already argued and thought through why I like and dislike each of them, flaws and all. They may not be masterpieces, but they are competently told- something I cannot say of this one.
I'm interested in what makes a story work well, and wherein lies the badness of the story if it seems bad. I just am trying to understand what people liked about this one because the critics rated it so high and a decent number of my friends liked it. So I'm trying to articulate why I didn't like it and hoping to see if I'm missing something. So far not- just people think it's adequate for its flaws, and apparently didn't even care for the first ones.
edit. I am going to see it a second time tonight, so I'll try and set aside my criticisms to try and find what the filmmakers were going for. We'll see how successful that will be.
double edit. Or maybe not tonight. However, it's a mistake to think it's new vs old. I generally liked Force Awakens- my biggest criticism was that it rehashed A New Hope. I was okay with such a safe play, so long as they went in more creative directions in the future. (I don't think we got that with Last Jedi- again Frankenstein Empire/Return). And I very much liked Rogue One. It had its flaws, but I was on board for the ride the entire film. Not so this latest.
|
It's kind of pointless to argue with someone who doesn't really like Star Wars in the first place.
|
On December 29 2017 14:14 karazax wrote: It's kind of pointless to argue with someone who doesn't really like Star Wars in the first place.
I feel like The Red Viper is making a pretty astute point though. People take Star Wars as something well beyond any one movie could satisfy, and as a result you end up with really skewed perspectives. I am not saying that there aren't any legitimate issues with TLJ or the new movies in general (and may valid points are raised here), but when you get people saying "it's worse than jar jar!" "Rey is the worst acted character ever" and "feminist conspiracy"...
You start to wonder how much of these are genuine views, or are they just people trying to articulate their true feelings of disappointment that the good versus evil galaxy that has been an easy flight of fantasy away from our boring/grey one, is no longer offering the same stuff.
The religion comparison isn't too far off the mark - since people show up at church to basically read the same book which has the same message, over and over and over.
|
Canada10904 Posts
I can assure you, it wasn't nuance that was throwing me off. A film that throws- 'oh rich war profiteers are evil we should punch them in the face... but they also make ships for the Resistance too, whaaaat?' Isn't exactly adding much nuance into the Star Wars galaxy. That's all text and no subtext.
And I'm two for three of the new films that I liked, so it's not nostalgia goggles or a religious experience that's throwing me off.
|
On December 29 2017 17:00 Falling wrote: I can assure you, it wasn't nuance that was throwing me off. A film that throws- 'oh rich war profiteers are evil we should punch them in the face... but they also make ships for the Resistance too, whaaaat?' Isn't exactly adding much nuance into the Star Wars galaxy. That's all text and no subtext.
And I'm two for three of the new films that I liked, so it's not nostalgia goggles or a religious experience that's throwing me off.
Relax, I was not making the above comment against you, and I specifically mentioned that yes you can make many correct observations about the flaws of TLJ (and I literally had your posts in mind - while I don't agree with them I can agree that they are well above the kind of commentary I was discussing).
I'd confess to only just skimming most of your comments, but I also don't think that you made any of the "WORST THAN JAR JAR" comparisons.
Although going your response above, maybe it's an instance of how for all of us that care about Star Wars, it's just a topic that is really quite something else. Which is linked I suppose to my comment to The Red Viper, this stuff has just gone way beyond the movies.
p.s. I am writing the above is the most reflective way possible, and I don't mean to accuse you of being overly emotional or anything. I'm just saying that Star Wars has become such a loaded topic and has definitely gone beyond being movies, and as much as we aspire to have an "objective" discussion (which you are), is this even really possible anymore at this point in the wider context of us as a community?
|
On December 29 2017 15:59 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 14:14 karazax wrote: It's kind of pointless to argue with someone who doesn't really like Star Wars in the first place. I feel like The Red Viper is making a pretty astute point though. People take Star Wars as something well beyond any one movie could satisfy, and as a result you end up with really skewed perspectives. I am not saying that there aren't any legitimate issues with TLJ or the new movies in general (and may valid points are raised here), but when you get people saying "it's worse than jar jar!" "Rey is the worst acted character ever" and "feminist conspiracy"... You start to wonder how much of these are genuine views, or are they just people trying to articulate their true feelings of disappointment that the good versus evil galaxy that has been an easy flight of fantasy away from our boring/grey one, is no longer offering the same stuff. The religion comparison isn't too far off the mark - since people show up at church to basically read the same book which has the same message, over and over and over.
Yes that feminist conspiracy is just too much, Rey I think is in the same league than Affleck, people who can only act with one "face", if you know what I mean, but as you can see some of the posts , I think the majority are just unsastified with the movie as a whole, I am starting to think that Disney made that movie with that purpose lol, I have read about many people who has gone to the theater a second time trying to be satisfied with TLJ, you know what that means? money, money, money.
|
On December 29 2017 15:59 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 14:14 karazax wrote: It's kind of pointless to argue with someone who doesn't really like Star Wars in the first place. I feel like The Red Viper is making a pretty astute point though. People take Star Wars as something well beyond any one movie could satisfy, and as a result you end up with really skewed perspectives. I am not saying that there aren't any legitimate issues with TLJ or the new movies in general (and may valid points are raised here), but when you get people saying "it's worse than jar jar!" "Rey is the worst acted character ever" and "feminist conspiracy"... You start to wonder how much of these are genuine views, or are they just people trying to articulate their true feelings of disappointment that the good versus evil galaxy that has been an easy flight of fantasy away from our boring/grey one, is no longer offering the same stuff. The religion comparison isn't too far off the mark - since people show up at church to basically read the same book which has the same message, over and over and over.
I don't think Rey's acting or feminist conspiracies are core complaints about the movie for the vast majority of people who have problems with it. Worse than Jar Jar would be hyperbole to me, but completely subjective. Certainly none of those are included in my criticisms of the film. I don't think it's the worst film ever, but there are lots of flaws. Not because it isn't the same story as the originals. In fact my core complaint against The Force Awakens is that it was too much of a copy of the original trilogy's story line. Wanting something new doesn't mean I wanted a story line that actively works to contradict or ignore what was set up before it though. I wanted a better written original story that expanded on the existing story line.
It's not surprising that some one who doesn't like the original movies doesn't understand the problems that many Star Wars fans have with the new movies. In the end liking or disliking a movie is very subjective and our core thoughts on the series as a whole are very different. There was a period of interesting debate and now it's prolonged into rehashing of the same points that neither side is likely to change their mind on.
|
|
|
|