|
|
The thing is that you simply told me i have to find such a thing when that was never the intent whatsoever. I was talking about lazy writing and how it was/is part of any star wars movie. You stating that the r2d2 one in tfa is worse because "it lacks an in universe explanation" for something people can easily fill in the holes themselves (reasonably) with every hint we got in the movie (about the maps in general) and the typical star wars plot convenience is questionable to say the least. ("any explanation is better than no specific explanation?)
I probably should have told you that i am not interested to find an 1:1 equivalent when in the end it's about questionable writing choices.
You simply focus on the thing which suits your argumentation the most (in this example the fact that i didn't do what you told me to; which was never even my intent in the part you quoted btw)
So yes, i am tired of this because you do this all the time, change the subject to something very specific while it is completeley unnecessary to the overall argument.
If you want to continue this dicussion pm me (i won't answer you though), this is completely out of place in this thread tbh.
Have a nice day.
|
On January 06 2016 13:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The thing is that you simply told me i have to find such a thing when that was never the intent whatsoever. I was talking about lazy writing and how it was/is part of any star wars movie. You stating that the r2d2 one in tfa is worse because "it lacks an in universe explanation" for something people can easily fill in the holes themselves (reasonably) with every hint we got in the movie (about the maps in general) and the typical star wars plot convenience is questionable to say the least. ("any explanation is better than no specific explanation?)
I probably should have told you that i am not interested to find an 1:1 equivalent when in the end it's about questionable writing choices.
You simply focus on the thing which suits your argumentation the most (in this example the fact that i didn't do what you told me to; which was never even my intent in the part you quoted btw)
So yes, i am tired of this because you do this all the time, change the subject to something very specific while it is completeley unnecessary to the overall argument.
If you want to continue this dicussion pm me (i won't answer you though), this is completely out of place in this thread tbh.
Have a nice day.
You're deliberately misrepresenting the discussion yet again. Falling wrote a post explaining that he saw R2-D2 suddenly waking up with the rest of the map as a flaw in the movie, albeit a minor one. His problem with it was that there was no explanation within the movie as to why that plot event happened. This is a specific issue that he had with TFA. In your responses to him and another poster, you argued that the same type of criticism could be leveled at the OT. I then asked you a very precise question, about exactly what Falling was talking about, namely unexplained plot events. Here is that question:
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?
You then proceeded to not name me a single plot event in the OT that was unexplained within the movies, therefore not answering the question at all. I did not ask you about what you felt was "bad writing", I asked you about unexplained major plot developments which occurred within the movies. At no point did I "change the subject" -- in fact, I'm actually the one who stuck to discussing the type of flaw that Falling pointed out.
To sum up, 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 with regards to the inclusion of unexplained plot events in the movies. TFA is guilty of this, and ANH doesn't seem to be (I'm open to counter-examples, though).
|
Canada11486 Posts
I don't think it's necessary to rewatch ANH for the express purpose to look for plot inconsistencies. My entire point is this one jumped out at me while watching the film for the first time.
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)
No. That would be a bad explanation and they might as well not have the explanation at all. I like the explanation that the map piece that BB8 had, triggered R2 to wake up, but he was on in such deep hibernation it took him until the end of the movie to turn on. That's a perfectly serviceable explanation, and I wouldn't consider it arbitrary at all. They clearly thought it through- I wish they had included it in some way.
Alternatively, I also would have accepted that Luke was ready to be found and had sent a power up message to R2 and the next movie would explain he felt a great disturbance in the Force due to the 5 planets blowing up. Simply giving us a clue that a signal came through to R2 would have been sufficient explanation for me and the second film can fill in the gap. The choice isn't between no explanation and arbitrary explanation... I was wanting an explanation, mentally begging the director to give me one because I had bought in the movie and I didn't want to be meta thinking 'plot convenience'. Of course, if you didn't have that buy in, then you, but the lack of explanation jumped out at you, then you aren't mentally begging for an explanation in order to like that particular story moment, but you go into the 'this sucks' mode. I had buy in. I wanted it to work, but nothing was given 
There are some elements that it is fine to leave to the viewers imagination to fill in the gaps- the centrality of the question of 'where is Luke,' to me, doesn't fall in that category for really tight story telling that makes effective use of foreshadowing.
|
Spoilers regarding episode 7
+ Show Spoiler +If Leia can feel Han Solo dying then Luke probably could as well. Maybe he woke up R2 with the Force that is what I thought after watching the movie the second time. Luke kind of wants to stay out of things and let Han and Leia deal with their kid but they fuck it up so now hes gotta step in the put the kid down.
|
On January 06 2016 11:58 strongwind wrote:
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.
Couldn't agree more with your assessment of TFA, OT and of modern movies.
If you like movies that slowly expand on the story and build characters and yet is tense and pulls you into the plot, then I recommend watching Sicario, an excellent movie with every single aspect. I wish JJ Abrams creation was closer to Sicario than to Transformers/Prometheus type of a movie.
|
Overall I think JJ Abrams did about as well as he could have given the enormous expectations that came with this mammoth project. Imagine your boss walking into your room saying "I just bought this for USD4 billion - now make it profitable for me."
I thought it was an enjoyable movie (7/10) and certainly an emotional ride (hearing the iconic Star Wars theme at the start of the movie was special). Many elements were well done but, echoing posters above, there were a few points that struck me when I had time to think again. Somewhat like Dan Brown novels, the plot largely holds together if you are swept up in its pace...but once you have time to analyse it, the plot becomes weaker.
1. Rey picking up the Force very quickly (appreciate that this may be explained in the next movies when her background becomes clear)
2. Finn switching from "must run to far side of the galaxy to escape First Order even if it means abandoning Rey" to "must make audacious rescue attempt for Rey even if it means going to HQ of First Order"...and this is after being attacked by the First Order
3. Leia and Chewbacca ignoring each other on return from mission (not really a plot point but just felt out of character). The scene could have been easily managed (Leia and Rey hugging immediately without Chewbacca appearing, Leia welcoming Rey to base instead of them consoling each other (i.e. Leia and Chewbacca both suppressing their feelings), etc.)
4. The R2D2 awakening - I personally thought it would have been easiest if R2D2 woke up after Rey touched it.
Not enough to make it a "bad" movie in my eyes, but I would not consider TFA a "classic" either.
|
For those disappointed with the plot/pacing, I would direct your attention to this article:
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/12/28/star-wars-storytelling-and-fixing-it-in-post
The real issue was that the script was rushed. Apparently Abrams and crew were still trying to work out the structure and narrative after most of the scenes had been filmed. Lawrence Kasdan, who co-wrote the screenplays for the OT, was originally called in just to fix up dialogue, but apparently he had to rewrite a lot more than that. If he'd had more time to iron out the story, it would probably be less of a mess; but then, everyone wanted a new Star Wars movie as quick as possible, so the production got rushed.
Like Sharkies said, it's a testament to Abrams' directing and the actors' performance that TFA felt as fun as it did. I personally wish they'd come up with more original ideas than Empire 2.0 and Death Star 3.0, but here's hoping the next films get more creative.
|
It's honestly a joke that with infinite money they couldn't come up with a solid script that worked before they began production. But yeah, you can definitely feel the fiddling.
|
On January 06 2016 19:16 FuzzyJAM wrote:
It's honestly a joke that with infinite money they couldn't come up with a solid script that worked before they began production. But yeah, you can definitely feel the fiddling.
I truly believe it's the money that hinders great storytelling, because originality and creativity inherently holds a level of risk that most investors avoid. When this much money's at stake, most people play it safe. I think this has happened not just with movie storytelling but with video game storytelling as well.
Personally I think TV shows have taken up the originality / creativity mantle at the moment. Once the monied interests flood that market, who knows what's next.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 06 2016 14:58 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:Spoilers regarding episode 7 + Show Spoiler +If Leia can feel Han Solo dying then Luke probably could as well. Maybe he woke up R2 with the Force that is what I thought after watching the movie the second time. Luke kind of wants to stay out of things and let Han and Leia deal with their kid but they fuck it up so now hes gotta step in the put the kid down.
+ Show Spoiler +But Luke is old man now, surely he won't be the one to put anyone down? 
On January 06 2016 16:14 starimk wrote:For those disappointed with the plot/pacing, I would direct your attention to this article: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/12/28/star-wars-storytelling-and-fixing-it-in-postThe real issue was that the script was rushed. Apparently Abrams and crew were still trying to work out the structure and narrative after most of the scenes had been filmed. Lawrence Kasdan, who co-wrote the screenplays for the OT, was originally called in just to fix up dialogue, but apparently he had to rewrite a lot more than that. If he'd had more time to iron out the story, it would probably be less of a mess; but then, everyone wanted a new Star Wars movie as quick as possible, so the production got rushed. Like Sharkies said, it's a testament to Abrams' directing and the actors' performance that TFA felt as fun as it did. I personally wish they'd come up with more original ideas than Empire 2.0 and Death Star 3.0, but here's hoping the next films get more creative.
There is already articles and interviews saying the next 2 films directed by Breaking Bad guy is going to be "like the old movies" in terms of "chaos" or i forget the exact word. But the gist was they are going to make it like the previous Star Wars films where it is all crazy and confusing again.
I for one am intrigued as to where the story is going as like everyone points out to in this film with Empire 2.0 and Death Star 2.0 that surely it won't be + Show Spoiler +Luke trains a Jedi, Luke dies in battle with Ren, Girl uses force different to what has been taught to do. Kills Ren, Ren is her sister and Ren says sorry as he is dying.
|
On January 06 2016 19:34 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 19:16 FuzzyJAM wrote:
It's honestly a joke that with infinite money they couldn't come up with a solid script that worked before they began production. But yeah, you can definitely feel the fiddling. I truly believe it's the money that hinders great storytelling, because originality and creativity inherently holds a level of risk that most investors avoid. When this much money's at stake, most people play it safe. I think this has happened not just with movie storytelling but with video game storytelling as well. Personally I think TV shows have taken up the originality / creativity mantle at the moment. Once the monied interests flood that market, who knows what's next.
Yeah, there definitely comes a point where money cuts back on creativity. Anyone expecting a bold script was bound to be disappointed (though they could have played it at least a little less safe. . .) But there's a difference between having an uncreative script and not actually having a competent script you can work with so you have to change it halfway through. I mean. . .I suppose there's an argument that you don't know if a script works until you film it or something, but surely being able to do so is kind of the job of people working in film.
I guess the main problem was that they wanted a film by Christmas so there was a pretty heavy deadline.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Whilst i agree with the deadline point, didn't they start filming in 2014 no? Like November 2014 and filming was wrapped up by January or something?
|
On January 06 2016 20:06 Pandemona wrote:
Whilst i agree with the deadline point, didn't they start filming in 2014 no? Like November 2014 and filming was wrapped up by January or something?
Fair enough.
No excuse then. :D
|
On January 06 2016 19:39 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 14:58 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:Spoilers regarding episode 7 + Show Spoiler +If Leia can feel Han Solo dying then Luke probably could as well. Maybe he woke up R2 with the Force that is what I thought after watching the movie the second time. Luke kind of wants to stay out of things and let Han and Leia deal with their kid but they fuck it up so now hes gotta step in the put the kid down. + Show Spoiler +But Luke is old man now, surely he won't be the one to put anyone down? Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 16:14 starimk wrote:For those disappointed with the plot/pacing, I would direct your attention to this article: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/12/28/star-wars-storytelling-and-fixing-it-in-postThe real issue was that the script was rushed. Apparently Abrams and crew were still trying to work out the structure and narrative after most of the scenes had been filmed. Lawrence Kasdan, who co-wrote the screenplays for the OT, was originally called in just to fix up dialogue, but apparently he had to rewrite a lot more than that. If he'd had more time to iron out the story, it would probably be less of a mess; but then, everyone wanted a new Star Wars movie as quick as possible, so the production got rushed. Like Sharkies said, it's a testament to Abrams' directing and the actors' performance that TFA felt as fun as it did. I personally wish they'd come up with more original ideas than Empire 2.0 and Death Star 3.0, but here's hoping the next films get more creative. Also who isn't in love with Daisy Ridley <3
After watching the original version (in english) i thought she sometimes overacts, her pronunciation felt over the top in a few scenes. Nothing huge though, still better than not acting at all like Mark Hamill in ANH
On January 06 2016 14:13 Falling wrote:I don't think it's necessary to rewatch ANH for the express purpose to look for plot inconsistencies. My entire point is this one jumped out at me while watching the film for the first time. Show nested quote +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) No. That would be a bad explanation and they might as well not have the explanation at all. I like the explanation that the map piece that BB8 had, triggered R2 to wake up, but he was on in such deep hibernation it took him until the end of the movie to turn on. That's a perfectly serviceable explanation, and I wouldn't consider it arbitrary at all. They clearly thought it through- I wish they had included it in some way. Alternatively, I also would have accepted that Luke was ready to be found and had sent a power up message to R2 and the next movie would explain he felt a great disturbance in the Force due to the 5 planets blowing up. Simply giving us a clue that a signal came through to R2 would have been sufficient explanation for me and the second film can fill in the gap. The choice isn't between no explanation and arbitrary explanation... I was wanting an explanation, mentally begging the director to give me one because I had bought in the movie and I didn't want to be meta thinking 'plot convenience'. Of course, if you didn't have that buy in, then you, but the lack of explanation jumped out at you, then you aren't mentally begging for an explanation in order to like that particular story moment, but you go into the 'this sucks' mode. I had buy in. I wanted it to work, but nothing was given There are some elements that it is fine to leave to the viewers imagination to fill in the gaps- the centrality of the question of 'where is Luke,' to me, doesn't fall in that category for really tight story telling that makes effective use of foreshadowing.
No i get that. You wanted an explanation because it was obvious that it was plot convenience.
I am merely saying that i much rather have no explanation which is spoken out than having a bad one (like the one i used as an example) especially when you can (imo) quite easily find one for yourself here. R2D2 wakes up after Rey is on the planet. Maybe it was just random chance which would work as well, in the end it doesn't matter all that much tbh.
I then got in a stupid argument with kwizach after saying that i think the OT has lazy writing as well. Obviously it didn't lead anywhere because reasons.
One example of convenient plot points: The most retarded weakness anything every had in cinema history, the death star.
Is there any in universe explanation which makes any sense on why it is build like it is? Probably not, it is like it is to advance the plot in a convenient way. That's how star wars works.
Is there a reason force ghosts only appear when the plot demands it but never do much more than is absolutely necessary? No, it's simply how Star Wars works. etc
Maybe these things didn't bother (as much?) you while watching the OT, but they are there and they are just as lazy as having r2d2 waking up in a convenient way.
Also remember that this is just the first movie, maybe in the next one Luke explains the r2d2 thing (i mean they can easily rewrite the "official reasoning" because it is just as bad/good as any other somewhat reasonable explanation)
So yes, the ending was weird and doesn't make much sense, i am saying that bad explanations aren't really better than no explanations because sometimes a movie gives you the choice to interprete stuff for yourself.
My main annoyance is that people apparently really think the new script is so much worse than the other star wars ones, that's just nostalgia at its finest as far as i can tell. I don't think the thread necessarily should go down that route, but it had to be said imo.
|
|
|
On January 06 2016 22:09 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 19:39 Pandemona wrote:On January 06 2016 14:58 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:Spoilers regarding episode 7 + Show Spoiler +If Leia can feel Han Solo dying then Luke probably could as well. Maybe he woke up R2 with the Force that is what I thought after watching the movie the second time. Luke kind of wants to stay out of things and let Han and Leia deal with their kid but they fuck it up so now hes gotta step in the put the kid down. + Show Spoiler +But Luke is old man now, surely he won't be the one to put anyone down? On January 06 2016 16:14 starimk wrote:For those disappointed with the plot/pacing, I would direct your attention to this article: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/12/28/star-wars-storytelling-and-fixing-it-in-postThe real issue was that the script was rushed. Apparently Abrams and crew were still trying to work out the structure and narrative after most of the scenes had been filmed. Lawrence Kasdan, who co-wrote the screenplays for the OT, was originally called in just to fix up dialogue, but apparently he had to rewrite a lot more than that. If he'd had more time to iron out the story, it would probably be less of a mess; but then, everyone wanted a new Star Wars movie as quick as possible, so the production got rushed. Like Sharkies said, it's a testament to Abrams' directing and the actors' performance that TFA felt as fun as it did. I personally wish they'd come up with more original ideas than Empire 2.0 and Death Star 3.0, but here's hoping the next films get more creative. Also who isn't in love with Daisy Ridley <3 After watching the original version (in english) i thought she sometimes overacts, her pronunciation felt over the top in a few scenes. Nothing huge though, still better than not acting at all like Mark Hamill in ANH
Even with his weak acting, Luke in ANH felt more... grown up than Rey. The universe of TFA is run by a kids - Rey, Ren, Finn, General Ginger (what ever his actual name is). Their acting might be good, but they just feel young compared to the cast of ANH, even though they might have similar real ages. The name Snoke also sounds like it was given by a 5 year old. All of them act like teenagers. Even BB-8 feels like a child version of R2D2.
Then again, maybe I'm just getting old and everyone looks like a kid to me.
|
I could understand it if they were in the age group of teenagers, that would be terrible. They are young adults, i don't see the problem tbh. Acting is such a huge part in movies but in here people seem to not appreciate the good performance enough imo. Sure, i don't wanna say this was the pinnacle of acting or anything like that, but it worked perfectly here.
I cannot say the same about Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in the OT. WHich is imo an bigger annoyance than some writing issues here and there.
BB8 certainly feels like a pet, which makes it feel more alive though. I can see why that might bother you, i think it worked out great though. The man's best friend in a galaxy far far away.
What i really don't get is the snoke deal?! What's so bad about the name? I guess i am missing something here
|
The characters looking younger has a lot to do with makeup and the fact that TFA is a “current” movie. Luke, Han and Leia looked young when ANH came out, because their styles(Luke’s hair) reflected the times. Older films just make the actors look older in general. I think Fisher was like 20 in that movie was filming. Also we were all younger when we watched the first film.
|
On January 06 2016 22:36 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I could understand it if they were in the age group of teenagers, that would be terrible. They are young adults, i don't see the problem tbh. Acting is such a huge part in movies but in here people seem to not appreciate the good performance enough imo. Sure, i don't wanna say this was the pinnacle of acting or anything like that, but it worked perfectly here.
I cannot say the same about Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in the OT. WHich is imo an bigger annoyance than some writing issues here and there.
BB8 certainly feels like a pet, which makes it feel more alive though. I can see why that might bother you, i think it worked out great though. The man's best friend in a galaxy far far away.
What i really don't get is the snoke deal?! What's so bad about the name? I guess i am missing something here
FEAR THE ULTIMATE POWER OF.... SNOKE!
No, that doesn't work, the name is completely nonthreatening.
Compare it to names like Darth Vader! EMPEROR Palpatine! Tarkin!
Those names have power behind them, not just because of who has the name, but just by the sound of it alone. The name Snoke has no weight behind it. It sounds like a soft drink or like someone drugged up to his eyeballs is trying to talk about Snorting Coke. The powerful villain needs a name that matches his power.
Batman didn't fight his arch nemesis Fluffypants, he fought Bane. A name that means business.
Superman didn't fight Sunny-Day, he fought Doomsday, a name that invokes terror by sound alone.
Captain Picard became Locutus of Borg, not Picadilly the Drone.
The name Snoke just doesn't match up to that level of threat. I don't think of a powerful person when I hear it.
|
There was a great debate if Snoke was a worse name that General Grievous. The final decision was that they were both equally stupid. But Snoke wasn’t a walking asthma attack with “unlimited lightsabers and arms” so he was better.
MORE LIGHTSABERS MEANS MORE POWER!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
