|
|
On January 06 2016 07:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +We don't get an answer for this. You can either try to find an explanation which works for you or you can get angry about it and tell us how the script sucks because of it
Nah srsly, there really is no answer, the force i guess I think there is a third way- I think it is fine to identify that particular story moment as a flaw. It wasn't well explained, and adding one additional shot of one light blinking on and a quiet startup hum begin once BB8 gives up and leaves could've set up the end scene. It doesn't exist and so the film maker had to explain that particular moment outside of the work- we have the explanation, and I am content with the explanation. But it's a moment where story intention didn't line up with story execution, and so is a minor storytelling flaw. I'm starting to feel the arguments are getting a little polarized and unnecessarily heated.
The official explanation of JJ is just as good as any explanation you can find on your own while watching the movie.
I actually prefer the force in this instant.
I mean technically you surely can say it is a flaw, but if we set this level of detail as a standard (that we actually NEED an explanation here) then we should probably discuss every other scene in all of the Star Wars movies (and not only them).
I don't think it is reasonable to do so tbh.
So which standard is reasonable? Also people pretty much ONLY focussing on script flaws is so weird to me. We discuss a movie here, no script we have just read. People pretty much only rate the script when they say it was disappointing, why?
|
The minor flaws of the script/direction can be pointed out. But if they had a substantive effect on someone’s enjoyment of the film is another matter altogether. So a lot of discussion those flaws will boil down to either “Yep that bothered me,” or “Yep, but it didn’t bother me.” Personally, those discussion lack depth and rarely lead to anything interesting. Others may find them interesting, but it feel shallow to me.
On other topics, I really liked the set design in the movie. I wish the rebellions base was in a different style “biosphere” than bar the scene before. It didn’t like they traveled to a new world, which bothered me a bit.
But I really enjoyed the practical set work, especially the bar itself.
|
Canada11385 Posts
I think an explanation is needed because it stood out to me when I was watching the film- I was pulled along by the story, and unbidden, the question came to my mind: "Wait, why did R2 wake up? Why now?" It drew me out of the story temporarily, and I do think it is an actual flaw, though not enough to spoil the enjoyment of the entire film for me.
Largely it has to do with an expectation in stories to have causes- R2 is in a steady state until either acted upon or he acts himself. What changed and why then? This is a natural question for anyone in the story. It's more important to provide an explanation because the mystery of 'where is Luke' was established as one of the big questions of film. Having R2 wake up in time to wrap ups the story before the credits roll with no explanation is dissatisfying, compared to a properly set up pay off.
I don't know why you are talking about the script as I was not doing so.
On other topics, I really liked the set design in the movie. I wish the rebellions base was in a different style “biosphere” than bar the scene before. It didn’t like they traveled to a new world, which bothered me a bit.
But I really enjoyed the practical set work, especially the bar itself.
I cannot talk enough about how much I liked the worldbuilding for Jakku. I loved that entire society was built around scavenging the wrecks of the past war. The wrecks tell as much about the past civil war as any exposition could (although exposition isn't bad.) It was a lovely idea and I feel like there was a lot that helped set up the character of Rey in fairly subtle ways.
|
That wasn't directed at you specifically. But in the end it is a script/story issue. A movie is more than that though.
People (not you  ) saying it was a bad/disappointing movie pretty much only use the story as a reasoning. "too close to anh, not original, has script flaws" Nobody is really talking about the acting, how scenes are shot, the look of the movie, the music, anything in that direction.
It's always only "hey that wasn't thought out" as if the only impact a movie has on us is the quality of the script itself.
It feels very weird to me tbh.
As i said before, any explanation you can come up with is a good one here imo. Rey being a force user, the force itself, maybe just randomly (we don't even know if any time passed between the scene and rey arriving there iirc)
But yeah this question comes naturally, i agree. I just think it is totally fine for the movie to let you find your own explanation here. People usually accepted "the force" as an explanation for most of these "flaws" in Star Wars movies tbh.
On January 06 2016 07:38 Plansix wrote:
On other topics, I really liked the set design in the movie. I wish the rebellions base was in a different style “biosphere” than bar the scene before. It didn’t like they traveled to a new world, which bothered me a bit.
But I really enjoyed the practical set work, especially the bar itself.
Yeah the set design was amazing, the whole movie looked really, really good for the most part. The whole introduction sequence of Rey was one of the best things i have seen in Star Wars.
I also really liked that for the first time ever the storm troopers actually seem semi decent at what they are doing. This was one of the "flaws" of the OT for me which was finally done reasonably well.
The acting was also on a very decent level, especially Adam Driver did a good job imo.
I actually cannot say anything about the music tbh, that was never something i pay close attention to though, so maybe that's just me. It didn't feel special though i guess.
I feel we got a lot of great shots in this movie, perfect for wallpapers or something :D (partly due to the great lighting)
I guess i was a bit unfair about the criticism of the discussion topics though, it's kinda hard to discuss a lot of the scenes in detail when we only really have the movie version available atm 
|
On January 06 2016 07:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:That wasn't directed at you specifically. But in the end it is a script/story issue. A movie is more than that though. People (not you ) saying it was a bad/disappointing movie pretty much only use the story as a reasoning. "too close to anh, not original, has script flaws" Nobody is really talking about the acting, how scenes are shot, the look of the movie, the music, anything in that direction. It's always only "hey that wasn't thought out" as if the only impact a movie has on us is the quality of the script itself. It feels very weird to me tbh. As i said before, any explanation you can come up with is a good one here imo. Rey being a force user, the force itself, maybe just randomly (we don't even know if any time passed between the scene and rey arriving there iirc) But yeah this question comes naturally, i agree. I just think it is totally fine for the movie to let you find your own explanation here. People usually accepted "the force" as an explanation for most of these "flaws" in Star Wars movies tbh.
Referring to the force is just a lazy way to justify shortcoming of the plot. The problem is that anything, even the most absurd events, could be then explained by referring to the force.
And if you read the post carefully, people were commenting on acting, cinematography, music. But there are two reasons why the discussion does not focus on these aspect of the move. First, discussed above extensively, is that weakness of the plot is distracting. Second, there is so much happening in the movie that there is little time left for the viewer to actually have any spare attention left. There were many scenes which, if extended by a few seconds, would be great. Instead, the camera just flashed through them. This goes back to weakness of the plot, too much is happening in the movie too fast. That left no time to explain the story context, build characters properly and to focus on the other aspects of the movie. I do not hear people discussing cinematography or acting much in action movies, and that applies to TFA.
|
On January 06 2016 07:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:That wasn't directed at you specifically. But in the end it is a script/story issue. A movie is more than that though. People (not you ) saying it was a bad/disappointing movie pretty much only use the story as a reasoning. "too close to anh, not original, has script flaws" Nobody is really talking about the acting, how scenes are shot, the look of the movie, the music, anything in that direction. It's always only "hey that wasn't thought out" as if the only impact a movie has on us is the quality of the script itself. It feels very weird to me tbh. As i said before, any explanation you can come up with is a good one here imo. Rey being a force user, the force itself, maybe just randomly (we don't even know if any time passed between the scene and rey arriving there iirc) But yeah this question comes naturally, i agree. I just think it is totally fine for the movie to let you find your own explanation here. People usually accepted "the force" as an explanation for most of these "flaws" in Star Wars movies tbh.
The thing is, the acting was decent, the shooting of the scenes was decent, the SFX were decent, the music was good... but the story and characters completely broke the movie for me, which means I will criticize those parts. The movie was okay, but it got held down by really, really poor writing.
No one criticizes the other parts because those parts weren't bad or as bad. For some people, those good or at least decent parts don't make up for the bad parts, others can accept the bad parts due to the good parts or chose to ignore those weak points. Both opinions are correct, since both are entirely subjective.
I did not enjoy Ep7, you did, and neither of us is wrong.
|
On January 06 2016 08:10 Lebesgue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 07:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:That wasn't directed at you specifically. But in the end it is a script/story issue. A movie is more than that though. People (not you ) saying it was a bad/disappointing movie pretty much only use the story as a reasoning. "too close to anh, not original, has script flaws" Nobody is really talking about the acting, how scenes are shot, the look of the movie, the music, anything in that direction. It's always only "hey that wasn't thought out" as if the only impact a movie has on us is the quality of the script itself. It feels very weird to me tbh. As i said before, any explanation you can come up with is a good one here imo. Rey being a force user, the force itself, maybe just randomly (we don't even know if any time passed between the scene and rey arriving there iirc) But yeah this question comes naturally, i agree. I just think it is totally fine for the movie to let you find your own explanation here. People usually accepted "the force" as an explanation for most of these "flaws" in Star Wars movies tbh. Referring to the force is just a lazy way to justify shortcoming of the plot. The problem is that anything, even the most absurd events, could be then explained by referring to the force. And if you read the post carefully, people were commenting on acting, cinematography, music. But there are two reasons why the discussion does not focus on these aspect of the move. First, discussed above extensively, is that weakness of the plot is distracting. Second, there is so much happening in the movie that there is little time left for the viewer to actually have any spare attention left. There were many scenes which, if extended by a few seconds, would be great. Instead, the camera just flashed through them. This goes back to weakness of the plot, too much is happening in the movie too fast. That left no time to explain the story context, build characters properly and to focus on the other aspects of the movie. I do not hear people discussing cinematography or acting much in action movies, and that applies to TFA.
technically it may be lazy writing, the thing is that this is done in star wars all the time. I cannot understand how it can bother you guys so much here, but NOT in the old movies for example. (not saying this is true for everybody criticizing tfa, but i mostly get that feeling)
There is a lot of very convenient storytelling going on in star wars in general, it has to be simple, it has to have a nice flow which makes explainign everything somewhere impossible/unnecessary.
That's part of what star wars is in the end.
On January 06 2016 08:13 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 07:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:That wasn't directed at you specifically. But in the end it is a script/story issue. A movie is more than that though. People (not you ) saying it was a bad/disappointing movie pretty much only use the story as a reasoning. "too close to anh, not original, has script flaws" Nobody is really talking about the acting, how scenes are shot, the look of the movie, the music, anything in that direction. It's always only "hey that wasn't thought out" as if the only impact a movie has on us is the quality of the script itself. It feels very weird to me tbh. As i said before, any explanation you can come up with is a good one here imo. Rey being a force user, the force itself, maybe just randomly (we don't even know if any time passed between the scene and rey arriving there iirc) But yeah this question comes naturally, i agree. I just think it is totally fine for the movie to let you find your own explanation here. People usually accepted "the force" as an explanation for most of these "flaws" in Star Wars movies tbh. The thing is, the acting was decent, the shooting of the scenes was decent, the SFX were decent, the music was good... but the story and characters completely broke the movie for me, which means I will criticize those parts. The movie was okay, but it got held down by really, really poor writing. No one criticizes the other parts because those parts weren't bad or as bad. For some people, those good or at least decent parts don't make up for the bad parts, others can accept the bad parts due to the good parts or chose to ignore those weak points. Both opinions are correct, since both are entirely subjective. I did not enjoy Ep7, you did, and neither of us is wrong.
Nobody is wrong for not enjoying something. But yes i would say you are wrong if you would tell me the movie is objectively bad. (or to be star wars specific, be worse than any of the prequels and arguably ROTJ, if we look at the whole picture maybe even the other two, but i don't wanna go that far right now^^)
So no, i don't believe in the sentiment that you cannot form 'objective' opinions about art, this has nothing to do with personal enjoyment either.
|
I enjoyed the movie but I walked out feeling that it didn't really deliver the "omph" it needed to make the story resonate.
ANH's story can be summarized as follows. The good guys needed to blow up the death star. The main villain is trying to stop them. The main character gets caught in the middle. The main character learns about the force. The climax is the main character applying what he learned to blow up the death star, thereby resolving the initial problem. It's simple and formulaic but very effective. It worked out great for JJ's Star Trek reboot.
Compare that to TFA. The good guys needed to find Luke Skywalker by delivering a map to the resistance. The main villain is trying to stop them. The main character gets caught in the middle. (Same as ANH so far) The good guys succeed in delivering the map but find that they're no closer to finding Luke. Main character gets captured. Super Death Star comes out of nowhere and becomes the bigger problem. The good guys need to blow it up. The main character learns about the force and applies it to escaping and beating the villain in a fight (climax). They blow up Super Death Star. When they return, R2 magically wakes up and resolves the original problem (as per the discussions in the previous pages).
I get that it's two different movies and we shouldn't expect identical plots. But it just felt like TFA was tying up a collection of loose ends rather than advancing a single coherent story. The protagonists' main goal of finding Luke got side-lined for too long and was then resolved without any heroism from the heroes. I felt it would have been better if they just stuck to the formula.
|
On January 06 2016 08:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 08:10 Lebesgue wrote:On January 06 2016 07:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:That wasn't directed at you specifically. But in the end it is a script/story issue. A movie is more than that though. People (not you ) saying it was a bad/disappointing movie pretty much only use the story as a reasoning. "too close to anh, not original, has script flaws" Nobody is really talking about the acting, how scenes are shot, the look of the movie, the music, anything in that direction. It's always only "hey that wasn't thought out" as if the only impact a movie has on us is the quality of the script itself. It feels very weird to me tbh. As i said before, any explanation you can come up with is a good one here imo. Rey being a force user, the force itself, maybe just randomly (we don't even know if any time passed between the scene and rey arriving there iirc) But yeah this question comes naturally, i agree. I just think it is totally fine for the movie to let you find your own explanation here. People usually accepted "the force" as an explanation for most of these "flaws" in Star Wars movies tbh. Referring to the force is just a lazy way to justify shortcoming of the plot. The problem is that anything, even the most absurd events, could be then explained by referring to the force. And if you read the post carefully, people were commenting on acting, cinematography, music. But there are two reasons why the discussion does not focus on these aspect of the move. First, discussed above extensively, is that weakness of the plot is distracting. Second, there is so much happening in the movie that there is little time left for the viewer to actually have any spare attention left. There were many scenes which, if extended by a few seconds, would be great. Instead, the camera just flashed through them. This goes back to weakness of the plot, too much is happening in the movie too fast. That left no time to explain the story context, build characters properly and to focus on the other aspects of the movie. I do not hear people discussing cinematography or acting much in action movies, and that applies to TFA. technically it may be lazy writing, the thing is that this is done in star wars all the time. I cannot understand how it can bother you guys so much here, but NOT in the old movies for example. (not saying this is true for everybody criticizing tfa, but i mostly get that feeling) There is a lot of very convenient storytelling going on in star wars in general, it has to be simple, it has to have a nice flow which makes explainign everything somewhere impossible/unnecessary. That's part of what star wars is in the end.
Do you have any example of a major plot event having absolutely no in-movie explanation in ANH, like R2D2 suddenly waking up with the rest of the map in TFA?
|
I should watch the old movies again for more specific things, but the appearance of force ghosts whenever it is convenient was one thing i was thinking about.
Is it explained why and how? Not really but it doesn't really matter (i am happy there are none in tfa though)
My point also was more about convenient timings, etc.
Also ín return of the jedi luke's plan is stupid and only works because the plot demands it. It's convenient, coincidence, whatever.
Star Wars never had the best writting was the main point, but as soon as the movie doesn't feel like some b movie people get mad at the flaws. Which is weird. (maybe because everything else is such high quality the flaws stick out more?)
It's nostalgia at its best as far as i can tell.
|
Saw the movie a week ago and came away disappointed. I tried to go in with tempered expectations, but unfortunately that wasn't enough. I mirror a lot of the criticisms mentioned in this thread.
I think my biggest dissatisfaction with the movie was the pacing. It moves so briskly that we're not able to really feel the enormity of each situation, or allow the characters to develop. A lot of what I enjoyed from the OT was in the seemingly small moments: R2 and C3PO bickering, Luke realizing who Yoda is on Dagobah, the ewoks worshipping C3PO and almost eating Han, etc. It's all these little narratives that are allowed to take place in this grand narrative that endears me to the OT, because the universe feels so alive!
I realize with a lot of movies nowadays, there is this notion that "we need to fit everything in a 2 hour time slot". And yet, the OT was able to tell a grand narrative within these confines and STILL have so many small narratives running throughout. I truly believe it is an art to be able to do this without affecting the integrity of the overall storyline, something which the OT excelled at and goes generally under-appreciated.
This thread is interesting because I had a discussion with my brother along similar lines. He thoroughly enjoyed the movie and felt I was being a cynic. I was disappointed with the movie and tried to explain my reasons why. At the end of the day, we both agreed to disagree. He can't convince me to like the movie by telling me to be more optimistic any more than I can convince him to dislike the movie by being more critical. We just have different criteria for what makes a good movie, and that's completely fine.
|
Honestly, this movie took me a while to digest. I watched it once, felt it was merely ok, then thought about it a while and realized that it was a lot better than I gave it credit for. Watched it a second time and thoroughly enjoyed it.
|
On January 06 2016 11:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I should watch the old movies again for more specific things, but the appearance of force ghosts whenever it is convenient was one thing i was thinking about. Is it explained why and how? Not really but it doesn't really matter (i am happy there are none in tfa though)
The Force ghosts do not appear out of nowhere, though. Obi-Wan explicitly tells Vader he will become "more powerful than [he] can imagine", and he voluntarily lets Vader strike him. He becomes one with the Force with the intent of helping Luke (and immediately does so by telling him "Run, Luke, run" -- his next message during the trench run thus has a precedent), meaning that his next appearances are not unexplained in-universe like R2D2 suddenly waking up with the rest of the map in TFA.
On January 06 2016 11:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:
My point also was more about convenient timings, etc.
Also ín return of the jedi luke's plan is stupid and only works because the plot demands it. It's convenient, coincidence, whatever.
Convenient timings and outcomes are not unexplained plot events, though, are they? If the shield protecting the second Death Star suddenly stopped working for no reason before the rebel commando disabled it, for example, you would have a point, but I see no example of unexplained major plot events in the OT similar to what we mentioned for TFA. The argument that "it was just as bad in the OT and you just don't remember it" simply does not seem to hold water.
|
And because they aren't "unexplained plotpoints" (which is arguable with Luke's master plan) they don't count as bad writing? ok
As i said, i don't have all the details available right now because i didn't watch the old movies the last few days, but there is bad writing, very convenient for the plot, just like r2d2 waking up at the right time.
The difference is that you apparently think it makes tfa unenjoyable while it doesn't do the same for the OT. Which is fine i guess, just dishonest.
I am not that interested to argue about this though because i probably won't watch the old movies in the next few days either and you don't seem to accept writing flaws unless they 1:1 mirror the r2d2 one (i think it is similar enough, but ok)
You also seem to emphasize that r2d2 had the map, that was clear before he woke up btw
|
On January 06 2016 12:34 The_Red_Viper wrote:
And because they aren't "unexplained plotpoints" (which is arguable with Luke's master plan) they don't count as bad writing? ok
As i said, i don't have all the details available right now because i didn't watch the old movies the last few days, but there is bad writing, very convenient for the plot, just like r2d2 waking up at the right time.
The difference is that you apparently think it makes tfa unenjoyable while it doesn't do the same for the OT. Which is fine i guess, just dishonest.
I am not that interested to argue about this though because i probably won't watch the old movies in the next few days either and you don't seem to accept writing flaws unless they 1:1 mirror the r2d2 one (i think it is similar enough, but ok)
I don't see the Force ghosts as bad writing, and I explained why. Luke's "plan" is completely improvised, because he did not expect to be sensed by Vader as part of the strike team. He did not actually really even have a plan -- his main objective was to bring back his father from the dark side. I don't see how events unfolded as bad writing (and you didn't really explain why it would qualify as such).
In any case, we weren't talking about bad writing in general, we were specifically talking about plot events having no in-movie explanation (why something integral to the plot suddenly happens in the course of the movie), like R2D2 suddenly waking up with the rest of the map in TFA. You made the argument that things like that happened in the OT, I asked you to provide an example, and you gave me examples of what you consider to be bad writing but not of important plot events that were unexplained in-universe. In this regard, therefore, your argument that "it was just as bad in the OT and you just don't remember it" simply does not seem to hold water. There's nothing dishonest about pointing this out.
On January 06 2016 12:34 The_Red_Viper wrote:
You also seem to emphasize that r2d2 had the map, that was clear before he woke up btw I don't recall the movie (remember we are not talking about Abrams' interviews but about the movie itself) offering an explanation as to why R2-D2 would have the rest of the map. Do you? I suppose we could consider that the vision of Luke with his hand on R2-D2 might qualify as an "explanation" for that... We're really stretching the term here, though, especially since that's not the actual explanation according to Abrams and Arndt: the map instead comes from the Imperial databases R2-D2 accessed when he was plugged into the Death Star in the OT, something that doesn't even come close to being mentioned in TFA. It would still also hardly explain why R2-D2 would have the entire map except for a sector, and why he suddenly woke up after the attack. Again, none of that is explained in the movie.
|
Luke's plan apparently evolved around having his lightsaber in r2d2. Which is weird in itself but it also works out nicely in the end because r2d2 conveniently was right there when he needed it.
If i don't remember that uncorrectly it is similar enough, just like Force Ghosts only appearing when it is convenient and only then.
You like to argue about semantics though apparently. bad writing is bad writing, even if there is an "explanation" (i guess if someone would have said "oh r2d2 woke up to help us" it would have been explained? Or something equally arbitrary)
It is dishonest because you don't seem to have the same standard for writing flaws in the OT (this isn't only about the end scene with r2d2, but all of the criticism in general)
I am not sure if we really should engage in this though, as i already said before i doubt this will lead anywhere.
The next time when i will watch all three of the original movies (which will take a while) i will take some notes and pm you 
Edit: Ah i forgot to add something which is similar to Leia not hugging chew, what about Leia not giving a damn about Luke being her brother and thus darth vader being her father (and the fact that she kissed Luke)
What about Han never arguing with Lando about the betrayal? This stuff is never "explained" but movie makers reasonably assume that sometimes people can fill in the holes themselves. Even though the Leia thing is still bonkers..
|
On January 06 2016 13:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:Luke's plan apparently evolved around having his lightsaber in r2d2. Which is weird in itself but it also works out nicely in the end because r2d2 conveniently was right there when he needed it. If i don't remember that uncorrectly it is similar enough, just like Force Ghosts only appearing when it is convenient and only then. You like to argue about semantics though apparently. bad writing is bad writing, even if there is an "explanation" (apparently if someone would have said "oh r2d2 woke up to help us" it would have been explained? Or something equally arbitrary) It is dishonest because you don't seem to have the same standard for writing flaws in the OT (this isn't only about the end scene with r2d2, but all of the criticism in general) I am not sure if we really should engage in this though, as i already said before i doubt this will lead anywhere. The next time when i will watch all three of the original movies (which will take a while) i will take some notes and pm you
Ok, I thought you were talking about Luke's plan with regards to his confrontation with Vader and the Emperor. His plan to save Han was simple enough: 1) plant the droids with his lightsaber inside Jabba's palace, 2) try to obtain Han's liberation diplomatically, if necessary through Force-persuasion, 3) if all else fails, adopt a more forceful approach by getting his lightsaber back from R2.
Can you argue that it was not very thought-out and that he got lucky R2-D2 wasn't left at the actual palace when they all went to the Sarlacc pit? Absolutely. But the point is that none of that comes out of nowhere and is unexplained in-universe. We see him donate the droids to Jabba, we see that he had hidden the lightsaber inside R2, and we see him try Force persuasion on Jabba. If we had seen Luke lose his lightsaber to Jabba early on, only for R2 to have a second lightsaber randomly pop out of him with no explanation whatsoever, you would have a point, but that's not what happened.
I'm not arguing semantics at all. Falling very clearly explained to you in what way R2-D2's waking up with the rest of the map was a flaw in the movie: there is no in-movie explanation as to why that happened. Force ghosts are not "similar enough" by any stretch of the imagination, since they are explained in-universe. What do you not understand about this?
Again, there's nothing dishonest about my position. I hold the ANH and TFA to the same standards script-wise, and ANH holds up considerably better. What is dishonest, however, is claiming as you do that the criticism that is being leveled at TFA is equally true of ANH in every way, when you were just incapable of finding an example of a plot event having no in-universe explanation in ANH.
On January 06 2016 13:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Edit: Ah i forgot to add something which is similar to Leia not hugging chew, what about Leia not giving a damn about Luke being her brother and thus darth vader being her father (and the fact that she kissed Luke)
What about Han never arguing with Lando about the betrayal? This stuff is never "explained" but movie makers reasonably assume that sometimes people can fill in the holes themselves. Even though the Leia thing is still bonkers..
Uh, what? None of that is similar in the slightest to Leia not acknowledging Han's closest friend who passes right by her. In RotJ, we do see the emotional impact of the revelation on Leia, but it is tempered by the fact that she tells Luke "I know... somehow I've always known". She knew deep down, but she was not immediately aware of the fact. And we see she's emotionally distraught after Luke leaves, wanting to be left alone and not to talk to Han. There's nothing "bonkers" about any of that -- just re-watch the scene.
With regards to Han and Lando, we see Chewie put Han up to speed when they are reunited in Jabba's cell.
|
Yep only arguing semantics, i am out and will in the future not respond to any of your posts.
|
On January 06 2016 13:20 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Yep only arguing semantics, i am out and will in the future not respond to any of your posts.
If you can't tell the difference between plot convenience and unexplained plot events, that's your problem. I'll repeat: Falling very clearly explained to you in what way R2-D2's waking up with the rest of the map was a flaw in the movie: there is no in-movie explanation as to why that happened. Force ghosts are not "similar enough" by any stretch of the imagination, since their existence is explained in-universe (and I'd argue they wouldn't even qualify as plot convenience, since there is nothing coincidental about them).
|
Honestly I've never heard anyone argue that ANH was poorly written before until this thread...kinda hard to fathom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
