|
|
Canada11350 Posts
On December 31 2015 10:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2015 02:58 Falling wrote:It was mentioned on this forum as part of a discussion on whether or not fan service was "minimal" in the movie. This has nothing to do with "tunnel vision" and everything to do with recognizing fan service for what it is. If I see shameless advertising in a movie (*cough* Michael Bay *cough*), I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to try to come up with reasons I'm getting brands shoved into my face, when the only concern of the director himself was to more or less attempt to not make it seem like too much of an advertisement. What is the difference, in your opinion, between fan service and continuity? And is fan service inherently bad? One of the tricky things with fan service is it is guessing at authorial intention: "X is in the film for Y reason." Whereas it could be for Y reason, plus a host of other reasons or Y reason may not have entered the mind of the creator at all. But even if we correctly guess the origins of why something exists in a story, have we actually identified whether that something is good or bad? I'd suggest speculating on origins is one step removed from identifying what makes it good or bad. Was it fan service or continuity to include any of the following: Han, Leia, Chewie, Luke, R2D2, C3PO, the Millennium Falcon, Admiral Ackbar, Nien Nunb, Darth Vader's helmet, Star Destroyers, X-wings, TIE Fighters, or Stormtroopers? If including the Millennium Falcon is allowable continuity, then is showing that the Falcon continues to work as it did previously continuity or fan service? (Engine troubles, hidden hatches, chess board, wildly swinging seats for the gun turrets, looks like garbage from the outside, etc.) Continuity is the use of characters, objects, settings and plot elements in a manner that is internally consistent and plot-relevant. Fan service is the gratuitous appearance of objects/elements that do not serve the plot/do not help with the consistency of the universe, but instead explicitly serve to please the fans, possibly by referencing other media (especially in the same series). The dejarik board was included as a nod to the ANH scene, for the fans. It is certainly not needed to help the viewer understand that they are in the actual Millenium Falcon. It is fan service. edit: I'm honestly surprised some people are fighting tooth and nail against this simple characterization. It's like nothing whatsoever that sounds like criticism can be allowed, even about the smallest of things.
You haven't been reading what I have been writing, if you think I'm not allowing for any criticisms of the film. If there are camps, I fall in the 'liked it, but saw some issues with it, but not so many that I disliked it, and many things that others had issues with, did not bother me" camp.
So my next question, having identified the dejarik board as fan service according to your definition, does that make its inclusion bad? Is the film worse for it's inclusion or is it just there? I'm not convinced it is necessarily fan service as that guesses at intention and to some extent, it's showing that the Falcon continues to work as it always did (and the original dejarik scene was not exactly plot relevant in the first place- more a character/ world building moment.) Is fan service intrinsically bad- that discovering fan service, means you have found a flaw? Or is there good, harmless, and bad (and many more) types of fan service? (For not good call backs, I'd point to Sarah Connor's "come with me if you want to live" as it deliberately mimics an iconic scene, serving to remind the viewer of a past epic moment, while not allowing the new film to create its own new epic moment. Or how C3PO get dragged along to Geonosis for no real reason- the amount of screen time those two droids get in the prequels for no plot reason whatsoever is nothing at all like we get in Force Awakens. So there are bad callbacks, but identifying a callback is not the same as saying it is bad.)
You say criticism is not allowed, but you have maybe identified why an element is in the story... but that doesn't actually analyze what makes it bad once it is there, in the film where it is. It is my belief that story elements can arrive in a story for a multiplicity of reasons, but the only thing that really matters is whether it works once it is there.
And the filmmakers did pay very good attention to how things worked before: the Falcon has a square radar, because of course the old one got knocked escaping off the second Death Star. They could've put a round one back on and no one is the wiser (standard replacement part, or filmmaker's inattention to detail- fans interpretation would have depended on their charitableness), but the filmmakers were very deliberate in showing continuity with the Falcon.
On December 31 2015 17:58 Dante08 wrote:
Movie is pretty good if 1) you watched episode 4,5,6 long ago and forgot the story or 2) you've never watched Star Wars before.
I would have went into the movie with different expectations if someone told me it was a complete remake of episode 4. But overall still enjoyable and I hope episode 8 will be better.
I disagree. My housemates and I specifically watched 4-6 again prior to going to theatres (and deliberately did NOT watch the prequels.) And I will self-identify as a Star Wars nerd- now that the EU has been decanonized, I've buying up the bad Bantam Star Wars books from second hand bookstores to add to my library of all the good ones, haha. Even bad nostalgia can be a form of nostalgia...
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's almost impossible to watch the movie without 30 years worth of expectations and decanonized material giving us an idea of what we imagined it would be like. On a second watch we know what to expect and can appreciate it for what it is. And it is a very solid movie that has a very solid link to the past (all three major characters are here again) while giving it a lot of new elements as well.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On January 01 2016 02:32 kwizach wrote:This article also brings up some very good points with regards to character development in TFA, imo.
I've been reading/ listening to Mary Sue criticisms, starting with Max Landis, but something was bothering me about the arguments. It had been a long time since I've argued over whether a character was a Mary Sue (goes back to when I was part of an Eragon anti-fandom), but looking at the old definitions and litmus tests, I think I discovered what I think is missing.
I think it's fair to say Rey picks a couple things up a little too quickly for my taste- specifically out-mechanicing Solo on his own ship, but it's clear she would be a good mechanic from her scavenger days.
But a Mary Sue isn't fundamentally about power levels- it can be a large part, but I don't think it's the integral core. Neither is lack of personality the necessary trait for a Mary Sue- I think the columnist is not trying enough to infer from the film's language to come up empty on the three main character's traits.
But a Mary Sue is fundamentally about an author insert. Often having names, looks, and traits that the author wishes they could have. The claim that Rey is a Mary Sue because women would like to be her- how do we test for that? Was the same desire to be like Han, Leia, or Luke also true in the 70's? That's such a broad definition of a Mary Sue that any interesting character could fall into that definition.
One of the indicators is that everyone is in awe of that character, except for one guy, who is a douche anyways. Douche ends up dying because Mary Sue is always right. Where do we get that fawning over Rey? Mary Sue's also tend act in similar ways to the villain, but none of the characters in the novel recognize this because every action of Mary Sue is morally good because Mary Sue did it. (One of the biggest tip offs of a Mary Sue story is the story is not very reflective on how poorly many actions could be interpreted.
Yes, there are things like hidden parentage, but more importantly Mary Sue's tend to hold similar views to the author (politically, religiously) and so the character becomes an avatar for the author to make commentary for life. None of this is evident with Rey.
Some is a little hard to translate from literature to film (an inordinate amount of description on how good looking the Mary Sue is, and how much time is given describing the Mary Sue's clothing compared to everyone else.) However, the camera really doesn't linger longer on Rey compared to anyone else, but it's fair to say they cast an attractive young woman, but not a super model, the latter would be more likely of a Mary Sue. Nor are people falling in line to sleep with her (or more PG versions if it is a chaste story), yes Fin might have a little crush on her, but it's not like she's getting accosted by absolutely everyone that she crosses.
There's a lot more that I could break down, but really very little of the Mary Sue litmus tests' apply.
I think power levels are why people go after Patrick Rothfuss' Kvothe, but also does not display Mary Sue tendencies.
The Mary Sue tests are more fun than scientific, but for kicks, I ran through Rey one of the tests, based on what I know and quote below is what I got. Granted, given my bias, I'm likely giving a fairly generous interpretation. She scores high on the Destined for Greatness section, but that it's par for the course of a soon-to-be Jedi Knight with missing parents.
Rey is nothing like you. She isn't really very cool: she blends into crowds, she hangs out on the fringes at parties, and wearing shades after dark makes her run into things. She always knew she was special, destined for great things - and probably made sure everyone else knew it too. She's come in for her share of hurt, but gotten off with minor damage. And she's gotten no slack from you.
In general, you care deeply about Rey, but you're smart enough to let her stand on her own, without burdening her with your personal fantasies or propping her up with idealization and over-dramatization. Rey is a healthy character with a promising career ahead of her.
Score Breakdown
Mirror, Mirror: Do I Know This Guy? 2
Beware the Monks of Cool: You Mean Plaid Is Out? 7
'Tis Your Destiny: Hey, Wanna See My Crown-Shaped Birthmark? 14
Oh, the Trauma: Can't Complain 4
Momma Loves Me Best: Momma HATES Her! 2
Total: 29
|
I'll answer that and say definitively "yes." The inherent problem with dejarik board is that it makes no sense for Finn to accidentally activate it. From a narrative perspective it serves no purpose as to posit the condition of the falcon as that has already been deliberately shown at this point, and multiple times. So the only reason for it to be turned on then is to be self-referential and say "hey, remember this from EP4?"
It's a moment because of the setting where the creators get the opportunity to cash in on nostalgia while also having it be plausible. Now the question is, is this inherently bad? I think the answer is it depends on the intended function, but recalling the dejarik board it serves only a single purpose, and as such detracts from the actual story that is unfolding.
I would definitely agree on the point of fan-servicing as legitimate stuff in the plot (the use of the falcon for one), but insofar as that's ever kept to a minimum. What it boils down to is this; the fundamental problem with referential fan-service (dejarik board, x-wing strafe run) is that the people writing this stuff in forget that the world itself IS the fan service. You don't need secondary references, or memorabilia, or anything else to sate peoples fandom. All you need is a good story that fits the continuity of the universe and overall trajectory you've set it in, and people wouldn't bat an eye.
|
That dejarik board was on screen for a couple of seconds. I had forgotten about it until you all started making a big deal out of it. Clearly the dejarik board was a nod to the old films and was thrown in there in a relatively unobtrusive way. Was it critical to the plot or did it need to be there? No. Did this seriously damage your capacity to enjoy the movie? Personally I found the stormtroopers throwing out a bellamy salute kind of jarring but it had little impact on my perception of the film.
|
|
|
On January 01 2016 06:45 CobaltBlu wrote:
That dejarik board was on screen for a couple of seconds. I had forgotten about it until you all started making a big deal out of it. Clearly the dejarik board was a nod to the old films and was thrown in there in a relatively unobtrusive way. Was it critical to the plot or did it need to be there? No. Did this seriously damage your capacity to enjoy the movie? Personally I found the stormtroopers throwing out a bellamy salute kind of jarring but it had little impact on my perception of the film.
Agreed. I hadn't even remembered it existed in the new movie until the 5 pages of discussion about it lol.
Also, yea i'm sure George Lucas is sad to see his "baby" he sold for $4bn go the wrong direction lol
|
Hyrule19058 Posts
I guess it's a good thing he's writing Episode 8 then.
|
George Lucas is so out of touch with reality. So strange to watch that interview.
I agree completely with what he says about modern Hollywood; no room for any creativity. He put it really well that directing a movie is like going to the casino with 100 million of other people's cash. Of course, they are going to make demands.
He also keeps calling Star Wars 'a kiddie movie', baiting the interviewer again and again into asking if he is being serious and why he is being derogatory about his own movie, so that he say: 'No, I am being serious. You can have the greatest inspiring effect on the mind of a young child.'
Also funny he called Disney 'white slavers'. With that statement he showed more of his true emotion than he intended, I think.
He thinks his original movies were bad, but defends the prequel. And in a way I must say, as bad as the dialogue for the prequels was, at least it had real dialogue and a slower pace. I think TFA dialogue was tons better than the godawful Star Trek dialogue, but it was too little. Less battles, more dialogue.
It must be strange for him as well for his movies to become as popular as they were for apparently the opposite reasons as to why he made them. And yet, you have to accept their success.
He also keeps talking about that he stopped doing Star Wars and started to do things he really cared about, but what did he really do? His wikipedia doesn't show he made arthouse movies or something.
Apparently, even he has too little money and Spielberg has not enough reputation to make the movies they want to make.
Hollywood is an amazing absurd place. Only a few years ago I learned that no movie in Hollywood ever made a profit.
The only creative minds in Hollywood are accountants.
|
All the more reason I'm glad he didn't have any part in them. Problems with episode 7 aside I still think it is better than the Prequels.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Lucas sort of went insane somewhere down the line. Sometimes it's important to just accept that your best work is not always something that independent of audience reactions, you would be the most proud of. While I do like two of his changes to the OT very much (the Palpatine in Ep 5 and the new victory music in Ep 6), going in and changing old movies because "it isn't the movie I wanted it to be" is really, really stupid and self-destructive.
I like Ep 7 and think it's on par with Ep 4. It has a lot of parallels but it really differentiates itself in the characters that take part. Han Solo is just himself, so he's nothing like Obi-Wan (and neither is Luke), and the only character you could really draw a straight parallel to is Rey = young Luke. The setting is similar but the characters (which is really what SW is about) are not.
|
This has probably been stated many times, but the only thing I disliked about this movie is how mind-bafflingly fast Rey learned all of her abilities and then could beat Kylo Ren after being so incompetent and then closing her eyes and clicking her heels three times wishing to become a badass and then she did.
I'm not a huge Star Wars nerd. Watched all the movies but never got into the cartoons/books. I would say this is my favorite Star Wars movie even though there's no scene that doesn't top Luke vs Vader in Episode 6.
That said, that isn't saying much. The prequels were pretty much garbage and you would honestly have to really try for your movie to be worse than those.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Rey lived as a scavenger of mechanical parts so her mechanics skills don't bother me. She learned the Force quickly but only the basics and only through mutual mind-probing of her brother/cousin/disappointingly unrelated adversary, which is a stretch but acceptable. Her lightsaber skills at the end seem to consist merely of wailing on a wounded and mentally unstable foe while being unharmed herself, which to be fair is the same as Luke vs. Vader Ep. 6, but isn't all that special.
Being better than the prequels is a minimum competency cutoff. For all the non-SW people I wanted to get to watch Ep7, I showed them only the OT and told them not to bother with the PT.
|
Ren: shot by a bow caster. And this is after the film ran an informerical about how bad ass the bowcaster is.
|
On January 01 2016 09:45 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Apparently, even he has too little money and Spielberg has not enough reputation to make the movies they want to make.
Hollywood is an amazing absurd place. Only a few years ago I learned that no movie in Hollywood ever made a profit..
Hollywood movies do make profits quite regularly. None of those movies that make a profit will ever win an oscar but they do make money. Take James Cameron's Avatar. It cost 237+ Million to make and grossed in box office only 2.788 Billion. Thats profit and does not include merchandising/dvd sales.
Star Wars made its production cost back before its release and is just going through the box office record ranking motions
I do believe that that majority of movies made in Hollywood are unprofitable, because they almost all suck. It's probably part of the reason we are getting swarmed by comic book hero movies. They all make money relatively easily and in huge chunks.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Comic book movies have the fatal flaw that if they differ too much from the comics or tell a story that is too far removed from what was already told by comics, the hardcore fans will riot. It's sort of a reason why the EU had to go to avoid that plague.
|
On January 01 2016 13:11 LegalLord wrote:
Comic book movies have the fatal flaw that if they differ too much from the comics or tell a story that is too far removed from what was already told by comics, the hardcore fans will riot. It's sort of a reason why the EU had to go to avoid that plague.
True. The new Fantastic 4 is a perfect example of that. Not even Stan Lee could sell a Black Human Torch to fans. Throw in a stupid origin plot that's way different and you have a blockblunder.
The Star Wars EU, at least has it relates to the Skywaker era, was....well crap. It made that droid with the faulty motivator in a new hope a force sensitive droid lol. Glad Disney axed that shit.
The EU Old Republic though is a beautifully told era and if Bioware didn't make a fucking amazing game I'd say Revan's story would make an incredible 3 part movie.
Hell, it still might make an amazing movie despite the game.
|
On January 01 2016 13:02 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 09:45 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Apparently, even he has too little money and Spielberg has not enough reputation to make the movies they want to make.
Hollywood is an amazing absurd place. Only a few years ago I learned that no movie in Hollywood ever made a profit.. Hollywood movies do make profits quite regularly. None of those movies that make a profit will ever win an oscar but they do make money. Take James Cameron's Avatar. It cost 237+ Million to make and grossed in box office only 2.788 Billion. Thats profit and does not include merchandising/dvd sales. Star Wars made its production cost back before its release and is just going through the box office record ranking motions I do believe that that majority of movies made in Hollywood are unprofitable, because they almost all suck. It's probably part of the reason we are getting swarmed by comic book hero movies. They all make money relatively easily and in huge chunks.
Hollywood accounting makes it look like movies don't make profits. Basically it's designed so if you're dumb and negotiate a % of profits as an actor you'll get diddly squat because the studio and everyone else pays themselves first. A movie's revenues (tickets, merch, sales, etc.) minus basic production and marketing is quite profitable the vast majority of time. After you slap on hefty producer's fee or whatever, it's not. Hollywood studios pay taxes on their profits, because under GAAP standards they're making profits.
Put it this way: I own a small business. Each year, it takes in 500K in revenue. About 300K is spent on COGS and other expense line items. At the end of the year, I have a profit if 200K. However, if I pay myself a 300K fee or salary beyon that, then it looks like my business is losing money. It's not. The first is GAAP. The second is Hollywood accounting.
|
Canada11350 Posts
Hollywood accounting is true magic. I think the best example is My Big Fat Greek Wedding: the movie cost $6 million to make, grossed $370 million, but apparently lost $20 million
|
United States22883 Posts
George Lucas can honestly fuck off already.
Abrams stated the reason TFA re-used old ideas is because they had to prove they could make a competent Star Wars movie again, and what better way to do that than re-create a Hero's Journey? If the prequels hadn't been so awful, they wouldn't have needed to prove that Star Wars is still box office relevant.
On repeating an old story: So far Abrams has only used the Death Star once. Lucas used the Death Star twice.
On fan service: sure, TFA had it but not as much as the prequels. Did Anakin building C3PO or tying Boba Fett in with the clone army really advance the story in a meaningful way? No, those decisions were entirely fan service.
On Hollywood and $$$, Lucas is one of the few people in Hollywood that's as driven by merchandising as Disney.
He's a total hypocrite, and by all accounts an egomaniac. He's notoriously difficult to work with and was lucky to be surrounded by elite talent in the 70's and 80's, who didn't let his bad writing get in the way of an interesting story. As Harrison Ford said, "George, you can type this shit, but you can't say it!"
He never made his actors better, and he eventually replaced his crew with Yes Men, so that he'd have full autonomy for the prequels. And the prequels sucked. Because of him. Not because of Christiansen or anyone else.
George Lucas will go down as one of the luckiest men alive. The only part of film making he excels at is world building. The rest, from his vision, his technique and his attitude, is bad. None of his original editors or writers will ever get enough credit for saving the original trilogy from him.
EDIT: And even his direction of the CGI is terrible. Lucas Arts is a legendary CGI studio, and the prequels' CGI is awful. The green screen usage pops out in every single scene and the character animations are jarringly bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
