|
|
On December 16 2015 21:52 SkrollK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 19:11 Velr wrote:
Seriously.. Why?
Even if the movie is good. Have the Prequels not tought People to wait and hear if the movie is any good?
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with People/Holywood Sorry to disappoint your elitist tastes about movies. Not everyone is a fucking artist that need some... I don't even know what you need. Everyone spitting on the PT are like old people, "t'was better in the good ol'days"... I actually liked PT. It was not the best movies I ever saw, but it was far from the worst. I can be nitpicking on some subjects, but cinema is not really something I watch to get some profound thinking... Especially american's blockbusters. Just pick a book if you want to do that.
Its not about elitism or wanting to think in the cinema.
Its about stupid garbage like the prequels, TMNT or Transformers 2+, Fast and the Furios 9000. There are plenty of fun/fine movies that aren't exactly brainfood like Pacific Rim, Guardians of the Galaxy, the 2 new Startreks, Mad Max Fury road - Just to name a few.
You know what the later Group has in common? They would also work whiteout their names because they are actually decent movies that are just fun. They probably wouldn't have made as much Money with less known names/franchises but they would still work (or actually did because Guardians/Pacific Rim and even Mad Max aren't really gigantic names)
|
On December 16 2015 22:16 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 21:52 SkrollK wrote:On December 16 2015 19:11 Velr wrote:
Seriously.. Why?
Even if the movie is good. Have the Prequels not tought People to wait and hear if the movie is any good?
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with People/Holywood Sorry to disappoint your elitist tastes about movies. Not everyone is a fucking artist that need some... I don't even know what you need. Everyone spitting on the PT are like old people, "t'was better in the good ol'days"... I actually liked PT. It was not the best movies I ever saw, but it was far from the worst. I can be nitpicking on some subjects, but cinema is not really something I watch to get some profound thinking... Especially american's blockbusters. Just pick a book if you want to do that. Its about stupid garbage like theoriginal trilogy
What????
|
Corrected.
Altho "return" wasn't really great 
Btw: From non spoilerous short reviews People seem to like the new one as far as i can tell?
|
On December 16 2015 22:16 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 21:52 SkrollK wrote:On December 16 2015 19:11 Velr wrote:
Seriously.. Why?
Even if the movie is good. Have the Prequels not tought People to wait and hear if the movie is any good?
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with People/Holywood Sorry to disappoint your elitist tastes about movies. Not everyone is a fucking artist that need some... I don't even know what you need. Everyone spitting on the PT are like old people, "t'was better in the good ol'days"... I actually liked PT. It was not the best movies I ever saw, but it was far from the worst. I can be nitpicking on some subjects, but cinema is not really something I watch to get some profound thinking... Especially american's blockbusters. Just pick a book if you want to do that. Its not about elitism or wanting to think in the cinema. Its about stupid garbage like the prequels, TMNT or Transformers 2+, Fast and the Furios 9000. There are plenty of fun/fine movies that aren't exactly brainfood like Pacific Rim, Guardians of the Galaxy, the 2 new Startreks, Mad Max Fury road - Just to name a few. You know what the later Group has in common? They would also work whiteout their names because they are actually decent movies that are just fun. They probably would have made as much Money with less known names/franchises but they would still work.
Basically this. We are not talking about wanting something artsy or deep or whatever. Noone expects a Citizen Kane out of Star Wars. This is about the difference between good blockbuster movies like most recent Marvel movies and crap like Transformers etc (basically the examples you mentioned).
The theoretic ability for a movie to stand on its own without the franchise is indeed a good indicator here.
|
There is a big difference between Citizen Kane and your typcial Marvel blockbuster though.
Star Wars shouldn't be content (no movie should) to be just another fun popcorn movie. It should at least try to be a bit more than that.
I don't even remember anything from the last blockbuster i saw because it was that pointless and uninspiring.
That shouldn't be the goal... (call it elitist, i think it isn't unreasonable)
|
Star Wars was the first summer block buster. It was ground breaking cinema at the time. The new movies won't do that again, because its impossible to back 35 years and delete the old films. The new film needs to capture what the old films had, the heroes journey, spiritualism and people being pulled out of apathy and their old life to be part of something greater than themselves.
|
This movie can't be and shouldn't try to be the OT. I'm hoping it has enough in common with the original to be Star Wars while standing on its own merit as a movie. Each of IV, V, and VI had its own feel to it, and I don't think the feeling can be replicated.
Reading most of the bad/mediocre review summaries seems to indicate nitpicking as the primary cause of weakness.
For those who are more fond of watching movies frequently, a few questions:
1. Are reviews bought?
2. Do ratings for hyped movies generally plummet shortly after release?
|
So Star Wars always has to be just the same? I think the Star Wars universe could be more and the general ideas and concepts of the world would definitely allow for more original ideas.
There is nothing wrong with a fun adventure movie, but i don't believe that you cannot add more depth to it at the same time.
I especially don't agree that the movies should be just like the OT. Maybe they were ground breaking back then, but when i watch them now i can totally see a lot of flaws. Most of it surely due to the budget, but the WHY isn't really important at the end of the day.
The OT are basically fairy tales in space settings, produced for children. That is fine, that can be fun for adults too (especially when it's the first take on scifi/fantasy on the big screen) but it 'objectively' didn't make for all that great movies.
I can easily see the new trilogy being better than the old one if they use their money wisely and write some interesting characters/casted good actors (let's be real Mark Hamill was pretty bad as Luke for the most part)
After watching all the Star Wars movies again i mostly agree that the Prequels were pretty bad though, the absolute basic parts didn't work in those films. Kinda a shame because the story would actually have been kinda interesting if done well.
|
Movie reviews are not bought from any reasonable publication or news agency. NPR, NYT and other publications have zero incentive to accept money for reviews and it would damage their credibility. That has been an ongoing myth for all reviews of artistic media, from video games to books. But at the end of the day, the amount of money it would require to make a reviewer risk their credibility is to high.
The only real argument is the reviewer gives the film a pass because they bought a lot of ads. But it would need to be a very small publication for that to matter. Also people who get into reviewing things for a living don't like lying about how good something is. Of course there is always some movie blog spamming out praise just to get a few ad bucks, but its easy to avoid them.
If you look at the top critics on rotten tomatoes, they all think the film is great.
|
Almost ran into some major spoilers but thankfully glossed over the important details enough to avoid revealing specifics. No more Star Wars articles for 36 hours for me.
Among the names of the biggest critics I see some people who were criticizing this movie well before it was released. No surprise there.
|
In general, I try to find a couple movie reviewers I keep to a couple movie reviewers. Glen Weldon and Linda Holmes of NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour are two very smart people that enjoy blockbusters but can also dig into a very deep piece of cinema. I find that the best reviewers are the ones that can dig into all films at the “level” the film is shooting for.
|
Alright for someone who actually wants to see some plot spoilers where can I find them?
+ Show Spoiler +in before "at the theatre" or some shit
|
On December 16 2015 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
This movie can't be and shouldn't try to be the OT. I'm hoping it has enough in common with the original to be Star Wars while standing on its own merit as a movie. Each of IV, V, and VI had its own feel to it, and I don't think the feeling can be replicated.
Reading most of the bad/mediocre review summaries seems to indicate nitpicking as the primary cause of weakness.
For those who are more fond of watching movies frequently, a few questions:
1. Are reviews bought?
2. Do ratings for hyped movies generally plummet shortly after release?
Older media (movies, tv shows, music) critics tend to be way more credible than videogame critics. There are plenty of times where huge blockbusters would receive low scores, like Michael Bay films. It's not like the videogame industry where Call of Duty 40-50 would receive 9+ all the time.
|
On December 17 2015 00:34 hariooo wrote:Alright for someone who actually wants to see some plot spoilers where can I find them? + Show Spoiler +in before "at the theatre" or some shit
the "starwarsleaks" subreddit has some info. I don't quite get the point to spoil yourself some days before you (probably) see the movie though
|
On December 16 2015 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
This movie can't be and shouldn't try to be the OT. I'm hoping it has enough in common with the original to be Star Wars while standing on its own merit as a movie. Each of IV, V, and VI had its own feel to it, and I don't think the feeling can be replicated.
Reading most of the bad/mediocre review summaries seems to indicate nitpicking as the primary cause of weakness.
For those who are more fond of watching movies frequently, a few questions:
1. Are reviews bought?
2. Do ratings for hyped movies generally plummet shortly after release?
Critics are not bought. The ratings don't go down generally but many critics also get caught by initial hype and then the rating gets corrected over time. There are some very dedicated ones like the dudes on rogerebert.com. But there are also critics in mass media who have hardly any clue (my opinion atleast). Good critics also release lists from time to time where they put out reviews which were relatively bad and correct them. Helps to keep integrity to say "hey dudes that was shit" from time to time.
Star Wars movies in general don't get critisized too much because you would receive thousands of angry mails or phone calls from angry nerds. For many it probably isn't worth the trouble (see critics rating of the prequels)
|
On December 17 2015 00:44 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
This movie can't be and shouldn't try to be the OT. I'm hoping it has enough in common with the original to be Star Wars while standing on its own merit as a movie. Each of IV, V, and VI had its own feel to it, and I don't think the feeling can be replicated.
Reading most of the bad/mediocre review summaries seems to indicate nitpicking as the primary cause of weakness.
For those who are more fond of watching movies frequently, a few questions:
1. Are reviews bought?
2. Do ratings for hyped movies generally plummet shortly after release? Older media (movies, tv shows, music) critics tend to be way more credible than videogame critics. There are plenty of times where huge blockbusters would receive low scores, like Michael Bay films. It's not like the videogame industry where Call of Duty 40-50 would receive 9+ all the time.
Most of the recent call of duty games have gotten like 8s, tbh. Its a yearly release, like Madden. So as long as its serving the people who like it, I am of the opinion it should receive a "this is a working video game like previous video games" score.
|
On December 17 2015 00:34 hariooo wrote:Alright for someone who actually wants to see some plot spoilers where can I find them? + Show Spoiler +in before "at the theatre" or some shit
I already saw it so if you have any questions
|
On December 17 2015 01:46 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 00:34 hariooo wrote:Alright for someone who actually wants to see some plot spoilers where can I find them? + Show Spoiler +in before "at the theatre" or some shit I already saw it so if you have any questions
Thanks but I did find what I was looking for. Anyone can search "pastebin force awakens" if they're interested.
Basically it sounds like JJ did for Star Wars what he did for Star Trek. Not necessarily a cinematic masterpiece of storytelling but pretty entertaining. I'll probably end up watching it once it comes to streaming.
|
On December 17 2015 02:00 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 01:46 Faust852 wrote:On December 17 2015 00:34 hariooo wrote:Alright for someone who actually wants to see some plot spoilers where can I find them? + Show Spoiler +in before "at the theatre" or some shit I already saw it so if you have any questions Thanks but I did find what I was looking for. Anyone can search "pastebin force awakens" if they're interested. Basically it sounds like JJ did for Star Wars what he did for Star Trek. Not necessarily a cinematic masterpiece of storytelling but pretty entertaining. I'll probably end up watching it once it comes to streaming.
I'll be quite satisfied, if we get a good blockbuster, too. I mean seriously if I want to have deep, philosophical stuff I'll watch 2001, Blade Runner, Solaris, 12 Monkeys or something like that. If I want the hard stuff I'll watch Alien, The Thing, terminator or Robocop. Star Wars has always been a family friendly franchise, a space opera which draws from many genres and a rather simple black and white story. I'll be fucking chuffed if it looks good, is engaging and fun on the first watch.
|
Canada11387 Posts
On December 16 2015 21:52 SkrollK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2015 19:11 Velr wrote:
Seriously.. Why?
Even if the movie is good. Have the Prequels not tought People to wait and hear if the movie is any good?
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with People/Holywood Sorry to disappoint your elitist tastes about movies. Not everyone is a fucking artist that need some... I don't even know what you need. Everyone spitting on the PT are like old people, "t'was better in the good ol'days"... I actually liked PT. It was not the best movies I ever saw, but it was far from the worst. I can be nitpicking on some subjects, but cinema is not really something I watch to get some profound thinking... Especially american's blockbusters. Just pick a book if you want to do that.
Interestingly, rather than the old people... I find my students (junior high and high school) to be faaaar more dismissive of the prequels than I am. I often think about the failed story telling and why elements don't work, but I was actually taken aback at an entire class's open vehemence, if not outright hostility, towards the films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
