|
|
On January 05 2016 01:27 zeo wrote:
What up with people in the SW universe understanding robot speak? So they beep or something in a universal robot language? Why not just program them to communicate in English over speakers?
How does Rey know droid-speak? How does anyone know droid-speak?
They beep the SW version of Morse Code I assume. IDK. Never really cared about that because R2-D2 and C-3PO had pretty funny one sided chats :p
|
On January 05 2016 09:30 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 01:27 zeo wrote:
What up with people in the SW universe understanding robot speak? So they beep or something in a universal robot language? Why not just program them to communicate in English over speakers?
How does Rey know droid-speak? How does anyone know droid-speak? They beep the SW version of Morse Code I assume. IDK. Never really cared about that because R2-D2 and C-3PO had pretty funny one sided chats :p
I think it's usually they have a reader (if they are flying a ship, like in Empire Strikes Back when they are flying to Dagobah, and Luke is talking to him) or some sort of earpiece that translates it, which seems like an OK explanation.
also, I often check the big Star Wars wiki for questions like that.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Binary
|
On January 05 2016 07:53 LegalLord wrote:
They specifically made Luke vanish because they knew he would steal the spotlight. I hope they don't kill him off because we already got a hero sacrifice with Han. They might just sideline him with some form of "this is your destiny, not mine" to keep him out of the action.
I hope they turn Luke into something like Jolee Bindo.
|
On January 05 2016 06:57 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 04:12 ZenithM wrote:On January 05 2016 04:11 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On January 05 2016 02:46 Plansix wrote:
It’s a universe where they can communicate between systems instantly with zero delay. So shooting between systems isn’t really that impressive if they have that level of tech. Not when you have a background in physics. Sending a supernova worth of energy across the universe is completely different from sending just a few kilowatt. But, I deliberately didn't make that point. If optics and trig work differently in the Star Wars universe, that is a problem. Why? Because Star Wars isn't science fiction. A fantasy world doesn't need a consistent magical system, or a detailed one, per se. Sanderson said some good things about that. Some fantasy uses magic as plot magic, others use it as a predefined system with rules the story has to follow. You can handwave the beam going at hyperspeed. You can say it doesn't need explanation because, plot. But you can't say they can see an object a million times larger, and brighter, than it should appear. I don't think you can just adjust the visual properties of something. Because the visual is what you see all the time. Can you suddenly make the midichlorians in Rey become visible as if they were life-sized, if the plot required it? I mean, if these is a space battle in the next starsystem, can we now also see it in the sky? You can't have a world that is complete chaos. You have to have fixed length scales, you need to have causality. (unless the story is about not having those). Everyone that has seen Cosmos, by Sagan or deGrasse, turned on Discovery to watch Morgen Freeman explain something, will just be outright confused about what they are seeing. They know the scales are so many magnitudes off, they think they see moons. If your storytelling is confusing, it is bad. That's different from seeing something, knowing exactly what is happening, but objecting: "How does that science work."
"You can't say", "you need to"... Who says that? Most people don't notice these inconsistencies. If the inconsistencies make the plot easier to understand, more dramatic and overall visually cooler and most don't even notice them, why not?
That's what they're gambling on. And they're right.
Again, I pity you, poor brilliant scientific minds who cannot set aside your knowledge to enjoy a movie :D.
Edit: I read a lot of Sanderson. While I find his magic systems cool, oftentimes I think they're actually too strictly defined and well constrained, which removes some of the... magic of it. I guess some other people really like that aspect of sciency and logical magic, it's a matter of tastes really.
|
Canada11368 Posts
On January 05 2016 02:37 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Why are you guys even debating ANH? It being a good, average or bad movie doesn't change anything about TFA.
And on top of that, they exist in an entirely different context. They cannot be compared 1:1.
But, yes the Star Wars fantasy about space wizards that is TFA had a better story with less plotholes than that thinking man's SF made by a certain JJ. If you are going to compare it to other movies, at least compare it to it's peers.
That bneing said, a lot of the plot of II and III made a lot more sense to me and did more for me than last part of RotJ did. That stuff with the Ewoks was god-awful.
Using something that magically just automatically wins the fight for the good guys, that is at old as story-telling. It's called deux ex machina and not necessarily bad writing per se.
But you can't do death star II deus ex machina after you already did death star I deus ex machina. And certainly not doing it a third and fourth(?) time. They still have two more movies to go (actually 5). If they think this is good story telling, can we expect it at least two more times? Maybe this time a doomsdayship? We haven't seen that yet. That would be creative.
I prefer a less dramatic plot. Hollywood rules dictate that you have to maximize the stakes of the story. So future of the universe. Since this movie was already about the future of the universe, the next ones can't be about the future of some spaceship or base or even a whole planet.
So how to put the whole universe at risk without a superweapon? What will they do?
Death Star I deus ex machina? Death Star II deus ex machina? Are you calling Han Solo's rescue and the Ewoks deus ex machina? Because they really aren't. Carelessly throwing around 'Mary Sue' makes me grumpy, but confusing eucatastrophe for deus ex machina makes me even more grumpy. A sudden, happy turn from catastrophe using already established forces is not the same thing as a sudden resolution from forces from completely outside the story. People throw around 'deus ex machina' far too hastily in my opinion.
|
|
|
On January 05 2016 08:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:Just saw it again and liked it even more (i watched the OV this time). Yes it is a movie which sole purpose was to give us new characters, but it does it pretty well and every single one of the new actors plays better than any old one (in the OT). Which is GOOD. The action was nice, the cinematography too. The pacing was a little bit off, but the second time it didn't bother me nearly as much. You can clearly tell that there are a lot of little details in the movie (like bb8 looking down to the next step when he follows rey in maz' building) I think it perfectly sets up the new trilogy, even when there are flaws in (plot) writting here and there (which is to be expected, pretty much every action movie has those) I hope Hamill got better as an actor, otherwise he will ruin the next movie 
The problem is not about the plot holes. I agree here that every movie has some though some movies have massive plot holes one after the other while others have few and not easy to spot. Rather the problem is that the plot itself is weak. As have been discussed on these pages, there is lack of character development, lack of the context in which the action is set, too many story lines at the same time.
To me, it is just an average and forgettable action movie comparable to Transformers Age of Extinction or to Transformers Dark Side of the Moon. If it wasn't called Star Wars, and if not for nostalgia about the old characters, it would have a much lower rating and people would not even bother discussing it.
|
On January 05 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:
I am under the impression that he will be larger than the standard human frame. With the focus on practical effects, I doubt they would make a core character that was all CGI unless it was 100% necessary in the character’s design.
Good guess.
Neal Scanlan, chief of creature and droid effects, told PEOPLE, "This character is much better executed as a CGI character. That's just a practical reality when he's 7-foot-something tall; he's very, very thin."
Source: http://www.people.com/article/star-wars-force-awakens-adam-driver-gwendoline-christie-domhnall-gleeson
Most of the people believe Snoke is a Munn (race).
|
On January 05 2016 07:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 07:42 FuzzyJAM wrote:
Harrison Ford seems like the most awkward guy on the planet and presumably commands a ludicrous fee. Carrie Fisher can barely act. Mark Hamill would necessarily take the entire focus of the plot.
They did their best to get rid of them as much as they possibly could. Good luck dealing with Luke Skywalker in the next film, though. . .Probably just going to cheaply kill him off as quick as possible. Ford got 0.5% of gross, which now means well over $5 million. Plus a few million worth of straight pay. Fisher did well here. Small part but well played. Doubt we'll see much of her because of the three, she is least relevant to the plot. They specifically made Luke vanish because they knew he would steal the spotlight. I hope they don't kill him off because we already got a hero sacrifice with Han. They might just sideline him with some form of "this is your destiny, not mine" to keep him out of the action.
This is essentially a remake of the original trilogy and Luke is practically Yoda, the "Jedi Master in Hiding".
In Ep8 Luke will train Rey, then Rey will run off to save someone. Since everything is bigger, it will be the whole resistance, not just some friends.
In Ep9 Luke will die. Since, again, everything is bigger, it will be an "epic" death instead of death by old age, though maybe just the special effects will be bigger and his force ghost will rise from his dead body in a bright light or something.
They've compressed the story of Ep4 and Ep5 a bit, so it's possible that Luke will die at the end of Ep8 instead of 9. Either way, Luke will get the full Yoda treatment.
I just wonder if they'll make Rey carry Luke on her back...
|
On January 05 2016 06:57 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 04:12 ZenithM wrote:On January 05 2016 04:11 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On January 05 2016 02:46 Plansix wrote:
It’s a universe where they can communicate between systems instantly with zero delay. So shooting between systems isn’t really that impressive if they have that level of tech. Not when you have a background in physics. Sending a supernova worth of energy across the universe is completely different from sending just a few kilowatt. But, I deliberately didn't make that point. If optics and trig work differently in the Star Wars universe, that is a problem. Why? Because Star Wars isn't science fiction. A fantasy world doesn't need a consistent magical system, or a detailed one, per se. Sanderson said some good things about that. Some fantasy uses magic as plot magic, others use it as a predefined system with rules the story has to follow. You can handwave the beam going at hyperspeed. You can say it doesn't need explanation because, plot. But you can't say they can see an object a million times larger, and brighter, than it should appear. I don't think you can just adjust the visual properties of something. Because the visual is what you see all the time. Can you suddenly make the midichlorians in Rey become visible as if they were life-sized, if the plot required it? I mean, if these is a space battle in the next starsystem, can we now also see it in the sky? You can't have a world that is complete chaos. You have to have fixed length scales, you need to have causality. (unless the story is about not having those). Everyone that has seen Cosmos, by Sagan or deGrasse, turned on Discovery to watch Morgen Freeman explain something, will just be outright confused about what they are seeing. They know the scales are so many magnitudes off, they think they see moons. If your storytelling is confusing, it is bad. That's different from seeing something, knowing exactly what is happening, but objecting: "How does that science work."
Mark Twain:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t."
|
On January 05 2016 16:04 Lebesgue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2016 08:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:Just saw it again and liked it even more (i watched the OV this time). Yes it is a movie which sole purpose was to give us new characters, but it does it pretty well and every single one of the new actors plays better than any old one (in the OT). Which is GOOD. The action was nice, the cinematography too. The pacing was a little bit off, but the second time it didn't bother me nearly as much. You can clearly tell that there are a lot of little details in the movie (like bb8 looking down to the next step when he follows rey in maz' building) I think it perfectly sets up the new trilogy, even when there are flaws in (plot) writting here and there (which is to be expected, pretty much every action movie has those) I hope Hamill got better as an actor, otherwise he will ruin the next movie The problem is not about the plot holes. I agree here that every movie has some though some movies have massive plot holes one after the other while others have few and not easy to spot. Rather the problem is that the plot itself is weak. As have been discussed on these pages, there is lack of character development, lack of the context in which the action is set, too many story lines at the same time. To me, it is just an average and forgettable action movie comparable to Transformers Age of Extinction or to Transformers Dark Side of the Moon. If it wasn't called Star Wars, and if not for nostalgia about the old characters, it would have a much lower rating and people would not even bother discussing it.
I don't agree with any of that tbh. The plot is just as weak as i would expect from a star wars movie. Especially considering that it's the first one in a new trilogy.
The characters actually develop in the first movie, at least to some extent.
There is actually context if you pay attention as well, you could argue that it's not clear enough, but anybody who actually watches the movie closely should be fine.
Comparing it to transformers is very weird to me, but sure if you think so. I mean it being star wars absolutely helps the movie, on the other hand it didn't help the prequels either after you actually watched it.
TFA is modern star wars, and i am happy it is because i couldn't stand a 2015 movie with b movie character (like the OT), even when some people call it "magic"
|
Saw the movie yesterday, I've followed some of the discussion (last pages) since then and I guess I feel like contributing.
Opening scene is great with a wink to ANH, showing how ominous The First Order is by blacking out the planet.
The scene immediately after that feels forced and awkward, immediate action, because there are four major characters introduced with only Kylo Ren getting a proper introduction. The action wasn't needed, however the display of power (stopping the laser) was cool. I guess the execution of all the villagers is necessary to show how merciless he's (trying) to be.
It's hard to believe Rey can just walk into a starship and just fly it masterfully, she seems to be some kind of prodigy in every way (which I don't really mind tbh), but even then, shouldn't flying a spacecraft be pretty difficult? (although it seems controls in the future is casualized by alot)
I thought the airstrike with TIE fighters on that little village was absolutely silly, I feel they could've used another way to advance the plot (also, their big ship is just in orbit of the planet, how the fuck can they let the MF escape so easily?)
Han introduction, okay. The inn scene, fun details, but another hommage to the original I guess. Rey discovering the calling of The Force was great. The destruction scene was pretty silly tbh, destroying the entirety of Coruscant, the way the beam worked, whatever, they have to go even more epic than the Death Star, right?
So from this point on, Rey knows she has a natural feel for the force, next to being a genius. Her defying Kylo Ren's usage of the force seems pretty okay here, since Kylo seems to struggle alot more with it (also highlighted in the fact she pull the lighsaber from him from a greater distance)
I didn't like at all how casually they have an entire holographic plan of the planet, while also coming up with the dumbest, unorganized plan in history of space to destroy a weapon of this magnitude. Even though this was a pretty big thorn in my side, I let it slide and the following scenes were all good, albeit alot of them hinting at ANH (really, an almost exact copy of the scene where they destroy the Death Star the first time?)
The scene where Han got killed was pretty intense, really liked it with the symbolism of the sun dying.
Last fight was okay, shows off the Neo like impact Rey will have in a cosmos without people helping to keep the balance and how Kylo Ren is just some kind of wanabe Vader, without the talent.
Implosion of the planet, while being visually stunnng, seemed pretty silly untill I saw it was all the solar energy just getting released and forming a "new" sun.
So that's about it. Got one more point I'd like to address: the scene where Rey uses the force to grab the lightsaber, the music could've been either a little more epic or a little louder, because I felt the significance of that moment was kind of lost with the music not being impactful enough.
|
Canada11368 Posts
On January 05 2016 16:00 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
No,
No? No what? Did I get your argument wrong?
|
On January 06 2016 00:17 Falling wrote:No? No what? Did I get your argument wrong?
I am going to assume he meant that all of those things were not deus ex machine. Like the term Mary Sue, that one gets thrown around a lot for people to describe an ending they don’t like. It’s an easy argument style, because it forces the person responding to argue against the term deus ex machine, rather than any specific argument.
|
Never said I don't like deus ex machina endings.
A deus ex machina is any ending where one thing turns a total defeat into a total victory.
Nothing is going right, but then something does go right, and instantly saved the day.
An ending that is not deus ex machina is one where things get progressively worse, but then also progressively better, like they would in the real world. If things don't get progressively better, but instantaniously get saved when before they were getting worse each scene, it is deus ex machina.
By the way, more truth bombs, Coruscant didn't get destroyed. The senate apparently moves from system to sytem. The Hosnian system was destroyed.
|
On January 05 2016 21:36 The_Red_Viper wrote:
There is actually context if you pay attention as well, you could argue that it's not clear enough, but anybody who actually watches the movie closely should be fine.
What contextualising is there? Where is there anything about the relationship between the Resistance and the Republic or how they work with the First Order or who controls the galaxy or the relative strength of any party or anything like that?
As far as I can recall, all we're told is that the First Order "rose from the ashes of the Empire" while the Resistance is "supported" by the Republic. That tells us nothing about relative strength or who's running the place - if anything, it implies the First Order is mostly in charge (hence the Republic's military wing being the Resistance and so tiny) which is not the case.
What's actually happening, apparently, is that the Republic is controlling pretty much the whole galaxy (presumably the same control as ye olde Republic) but has disbanded its military wing and has ignored the First Order, which isn't seen as a threat and appears to have no control over anywhere. The Resistance is fighting them while getting some funding, but not very much, from the Republic. Which is all a little contrived and plainly an attempt to discontinue the previous storyline and just set up Empire vs. Rebels again. But whatever, if you got that from the films then congrats, 'cause I don't imagine anyone else did.
|
On January 06 2016 01:39 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Never said I don't like deus ex machina endings.
A deus ex machina is any ending where one thing turns a total defeat into a total victory.
Nothing is going right, but then something does go right, and instantly saved the day.
An ending that is not deus ex machina is one where things get progressively worse, but then also progressively better, like they would in the real world. If things don't get progressively better, but instantaniously get saved when before they were getting worse each scene, it is deus ex machina.
This is literally not what deus ex machina means at all.
|
It is traditionally. You probably think it means some previously unknown thing comes in and saved everything. That's only where the name comes from.
|
On January 06 2016 01:45 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
It is traditionally. You probably think it means some previously unknown thing comes in and saved everything. That's only where the name comes from.
No it does not mean that at all. It means a third party of godly power appears out of no place and solves all the problems. It comes from Greek plays where the gods would just appear at the end and solve all of the problems in the play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
The term has evolved to mean a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring the tale to a happy ending, or as a comedic device.
Even using the force can't be said to be a Deus ex machina because it is expected in a Star Wars movie. Deus Ex Machina needs to come out of left field.
This is exactly what I am talking about. People using common literary terms completely wrong to strengthen their arguments and then claims "its how people use it now". Just because people collectively misuse a term doesn't change its true meaning.
|
Canada11368 Posts
Yeah, deus ex machina is as Plansix described it. I've heard heard way too many over applications of the term, but I've never, ever heard of total victory from total defeat as deus ex machina. In which case most stories aside from tragedies and indeterminate endings fall into that category as the climax is usually when the story seems darkest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
