|
|
On January 06 2016 23:12 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is absolutely true.
Who came up with such a name, you can replace that with bob and he would still be no less "threaten' than he is now, not to mention he is a huge CGI character that acts like the very definition of some mediocre evil dude.
(or "mid boss" as disgaea calls it)
I hope he isn't the final evil dude to beat, maybe it's just we don't know enough of him but so far everything seems to be a shadow of its former self.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +The end of the film he summons Ren to finish his training so i wonder if we get to see him in person in the next film...assuming no one has "played" his role as well in the film thus far as he was CGI right wonder who might play him as an actor too. I hope he is someone who is like the Emperor but has more of an evil background which opens up "another universe" sort of plot.
|
Would love it if Snoke turned out to be a midget
|
I think Snoke is going to fill the same role as the Emperor, creepy dude to sits in the chair and pits characters against each other. I bet we will find out more about him as well. Leia and Han refereed to him by name and in a pretty casual tone, so I bet he has been a threat for a while. Maybe came to prominence once the Emperor fell and he and Luke have been vying for students ever since.
I am more interested in the Knights of Ren, who look to be a bunch of lesser force users with weird weapons. It would be cool if they got away from the Sith stylings and started to get creative with other force users that don’t fight with light sabers. The stun baton of sick spins could be a preview of great things.
|
I really cannot see why Snoke is that bad of a name (because it rhymes with coke?^^). To me it doesn't sound childish or anything.
As i said i guess i am missing something?
But i get a lot of people don't like the name so i accept that i am really in the minority here with not having a problem, hehe.
Maybe I have a high tolerance for bad names in general though?!
|
It doesn’t bother me. It keeps with the grand tradition of silly Star Wars names, like Skywalker and the Millennium Falcon(Time Bird!). Supreme Leader Snoke sounds kind threatening if you say the whole thing and don’t think about it.
|
Skywalker is a beautiful name.
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 Show nested quote +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. 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. 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.[...]
I've explained extensively enough why those two examples are very different from R2D2 randomly waking up, but let me succinctly point out again that the Death Star having that flaw is a plot element that is originally there (exactly like the Starkiller base's weakness), and to which other characters react. It is not an plot event that happens in the course of the movie without an apparent cause, like in the case of R2D2. If the Death Star exhaust port suddenly created itself, that would be a different story.
I'm still unsure of what your problem is with the Force ghosts. Their existence is explained in the script, and I don't know where else you think they should have appeared. Their appearances serve a specific purpose (guide Luke towards learning the ways of the Force, or at the very end of RotJ to salute his development as a Jedi), and they keep to it. They're not there to tell Luke mid-fight with Vader "do a flip backwards". There is nothing weak about their inclusion in the OT scripts.
On January 06 2016 22:09 The_Red_Viper wrote:
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.
Your relativistic stance is simply not supported by anything substantial. The respective flaws of the OT and TFA have been discussed extensively, in particular with regards to the ANH - TFA comparison. Does ANH have flaws in the script and plot? Certainly. Is it still much less flawed, and better-written than TFA? Absolutely. This assessment has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with being able to look at both movies with a critical mind, instead of trying to excuse everything that happens in TFA. Let me also point out that arguing that TFA is more flawed than ANH isn't akin to saying that it's a terrible movie, but simply that the argument that "you could say the same about ANH for every flaw" is simply not true.
|
And i have explained extensively that i never even said it is the same category as r2d2, that doesn't make it any less lazy/bad/whatever you wanna call it writing. I won't say more because you simply choose to ignore where my argument is coming from and even change it to whatever suits your agenda at the time.
Any valid criticism of the OT you talk away just like i "excuse everything that happens in TFA".
To put it simple, i don't give a damn anymore about your opinion on things and it would be great if you would feel the same about me
|
On January 07 2016 01:20 The_Red_Viper wrote:
And i have explained extensively that i never even said it is the same category as r2d2, that doesn't make it any less lazy/bad/whatever you wanna call it writing. I won't say more because you simply choose to ignore where my argument is coming from and even change it to whatever suits your agenda at the time.
Any valid criticism of the OT you talk away just like i "excuse everything that happens in TFA".
To put it simple, i don't give a damn anymore about your opinion on things and it would be great if you would feel the same about me
Why are the force ghosts bad writing? I explained why I didn't see why they would qualify, and you never actually explained your position.
I don't find excuse for "any valid criticism of the OT" -- I explicitly said myself that I obviously recognize the OT has flaws (but I did address all of the points raised by Plansix and yourself, and some hardly qualify as flaws), and I mentioned the Death Star exhaust port as a plot point which should have been written better (even though finding the Death Star's weakness at least required hard work and sacrifice from the rebels, which can hardly be said of the Starkiller weakness). Again, though, ANH having flaws is not what's being disputed -- the point is that it is still better-written and not as flawed as TFA.
|
The arrival of Ben in RotJ is alittle ham fisted. He arrives for no specific reasons and just plot dumps all his reasoning for not telling Luke about vader and about his sister. Its similar to the old Victorian melodramas where someone would find a old letter from a dead relative decades later that went into pain staking detail of their intent, feelings and reasoning behind their actions. And that letter provides them with new insight into the dead character, allowing the plot to move forward. Another example is in Harry Potter and the Pensive, or flash back blow of plot delivery that allowed Snape to reveal his true motives. Some are better than others.
Its nowhere near the greatest crime of screen writing, but it isn’t perfect. Its one of the things I like about TFA, is that it avoids plot dumps like that. I would have preferred the movie have a little more room to breath once they got to space, but I get that they used those quite moments to establish Rey and allowed her and Kylo to have the mind battle scene. Those moments where they let the actors do their thing are the best moments in the movie. But that movie could have been 2 minutes longer and been ok.
|
Canada11350 Posts
What sounds threatening would be hard to clearly articulate- but for some reason some sounds can conjure up different tones or moods. Some writers can make use of that and others not so much. Moria and Mordor are dark, forboding places and somehow the sound of their names seem to match that.
By contrast, Theophilus Marzials wrote his poem "The Tragedy" which is supposed to be a sad poem, is undercut by using words like plop and flop. I have no idea what makes plop sound like an entirely silly word, nor why flop doesn't sound grave for a poem about tragedy, but I think it is a phenomenon that exists. (Nor is it just because plop and flop rhyme. The poem opens with Death! Plop. Which is just hilarious.)
|
I don't get all the debate over Force ghosts. Was Hamlet's father appearing throughout the play a weak plot point? No it wasn't; it was a central aspect of Hamlet's dilemma. How is Obi-wan any different? His presence is very necessary in terms of Luke's story in Empire and Jedi.
|
Cant wait for Star Wars Rogue One *0* the cast its pretty awesome
|
Force ghosts totally diminish the gravitas of someone dying. "hey he will be back as a force ghost anyway"
It also adds problems like asking yourself why that ghost only appears at certain times, why it doesn't appear in other difficult times, why the force ghost user essentially doesn't help more like he would if he was still alive.
It is a cheap mechanic which doesn't add anything meaningful to the story, in fact it diminishes story points which happened before.
But tbf, that whole Obi Wan vs vader scene was pretty terrible, at least it aged extremely poorly.
So yeah i hope the new trilogy will simply neglect the whole force ghost thing altogether.
|
On January 07 2016 02:08 starimk wrote:
I don't get all the debate over Force ghosts. Was Hamlet's father appearing throughout the play a weak plot point? No it wasn't; it was a central aspect of Hamlet's dilemma. How is Obi-wan any different? His presence is very necessary in terms of Luke's story in Empire and Jedi.
The ghost in hamlet is a way to solve a specific problem in that narrative, Hamlet discovering that his father was murdered. Writing has evolved a lot since Hamlet and the use of ghosts to push the plot forward had been replaced by flash backs, old letters and other narrative devices. Criticism of the “force ghosts” doesn’t make the movies films. All criticism is just a review of a film/book/play to see what worked well and what could have been done better.
I think the Ghost Ben and Luke scene in RotJ is the most ham fisted of the force ghosts. The rest were visions or disembodied voices and those worked better. However, I don’t think the scene is a huge problem because the actor playing Ben carries it off well and it’s a good moment for Luke. And I am not 100% sure that a scene where Yoda hands Luke a holo message from Ben or old message would have been more effective.
But thinking about movies in this fashion doesn’t remove the joy watching them. I still love 4-6, but my thoughts about them have evolved over the 30 years since I first watched them.
|
On January 07 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:
The arrival of Ben in RotJ is alittle ham fisted. He arrives for no specific reasons and just plot dumps all his reasoning for not telling Luke about vader and about his sister. Its similar to the old Victorian melodramas where someone would find a old letter from a dead relative decades later that went into pain staking detail of their intent, feelings and reasoning behind their actions. And that letter provides them with new insight into the dead character, allowing the plot to move forward. Another example is in Harry Potter and the Pensive, or flash back blow of plot delivery that allowed Snape to reveal his true motives. Some are better than others.
Ben arrives for a very specific reason: Luke had just witnessed the death of Yoda, who told him before dying that he should confront Vader, and he felt alone and incapable of doing that (which Yoda mentioned as a necessary step to truly become a Jedi). I don't see it as lengthy exposition at all -- we already know that Vader is Luke's father, and therefore that he was a Jedi who turned to the dark side, and Ben simply tells Luke his perspective on it. He then mentions that Luke has a sister (confirming what Yoda already said with "there is another Skywalker"), and it is Luke who exclaims "Leia!", thus showing us that he feels the connection to his sister. I don't see any of that as ham-fisted at all -- to the contrary, it's perfectly consistent with Ben's previous appearances as a Force ghost: to help Luke on his path towards the Force.
On January 07 2016 02:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Force ghosts totally diminish the gravitas of someone dying. "hey he will be back as a force ghost anyway"
Do they, though? The two Jedi we see dying after we learn of Force ghosts are Yoda and Anakin Skywalker. I fail to see how the existence of Force ghosts diminished in any way, shape or form the gravitas of either death. We knew by then that Force ghosts barely make appearances. They are very clearly not portrayed as RPG followers.
On January 07 2016 02:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It also adds problems like asking yourself why that ghost only appears at certain times, why it doesn't appear in other difficult times, why the force ghost user doesn't help more essentially like he would if he was still alive.
Are those questions you actually asked yourself when watching the movies? Because they pretty clearly establish the Force ghosts as only appearing to guide Luke in his path to become a Jedi. What use would they have been at other points? They're not there to babysit Luke -- the entire point is that he has to own and work on his own development as a Jedi.
On January 07 2016 02:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It is a cheap mechanic which doesn't add anything meaningful to the story, in fact it diminishes story points which happened before.
How do they not add anything meaningful to the story? They contribute to showing us how Luke both integrates what he is taught and makes his own path to becoming a Jedi. They support the plot and help establish the Force as something which transcends matter, exactly like Yoda tells Luke. What story points do they diminish?
|
On January 06 2016 20:02 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 19:34 strongwind wrote: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.
I think sometimes even a competent script can turn to crap once you put enough money into it. The bigger the budget, the greater the need to make things bigger, louder, prettier. It's easy to see how you could lose sight of your original vision once all is said and done. (I don't actually think this is what happened with TFA, just an aside)
That being said, I actually really like JJ Abrams (loved Lost, loved the Star Trek movies), and I think he's a very competent director. TFA was just a miss for me, but at least it went through capable hands 
|
On January 07 2016 02:57 kwizach wrote:
Do they, though? The two Jedi we see dying after we learn of Force ghosts are Yoda and Anakin Skywalker. I fail to see how the existence of Force ghosts diminished in any way, shape or form the gravitas of either death. We knew by then that Force ghosts barely make appearances. They are very clearly not portrayed as RPG followers.
I mean that death only means something when it is permanent. Through force ghosts it isn't. I think that is fairly straight forward tbh. It's the same when Gandalf comes back in lotr.
But yes they aren't portrayed as constant followers, that's true. I don't think that makes it any better though.
In fact it is kinda weird that they only appear in convenient times. The concept of it brings a lot of questions which are ignored in the movie because it doesn't matter for the plot.
I can maybe buy the part about the force being more than an energy field which reacts with matter, but i think that can be established without the dead coming back.
It's fine when these plot elements don't bother you, but at the end of the day it's pretty convenient storytelling you never should think about.
I absolutely think it weakens the death of these guys though, especially the darth vader sacrifice is kinda diminshed when in the next scene he smiles at us as a force ghost. (yes i know that is to show even the dumbest guy that he is good again )
|
On January 07 2016 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 02:57 kwizach wrote:
Do they, though? The two Jedi we see dying after we learn of Force ghosts are Yoda and Anakin Skywalker. I fail to see how the existence of Force ghosts diminished in any way, shape or form the gravitas of either death. We knew by then that Force ghosts barely make appearances. They are very clearly not portrayed as RPG followers. I mean that death only means something when it is permanent. Through force ghosts it isn't. I think that is fairly straight forward tbh. It's the same when Gandalf comes back in lotr. But yes they aren't portrayed as constant followers, that's true. I don't think that makes it any better though. In fact it is kinda weird that they only appear in convenient times. The concept of it brings a lot of questions which are ignored in the movie because it doesn't matter for the plot. I can maybe buy the part about the force being more than an energy field which reacts with matter, but i think that can be established without the dead coming back. It's fine when these plot elements don't bother you, but at the end of the day it's pretty convenient storytelling you never should think about. I absolutely think it weakens the death of these guys though, especially the darth vader sacrifice is kinda diminshed when in the next scene he smiles at us as a force ghost. (yes i know that is to show even the dumbest guy that he is good again )
I think it's completely different from Gandalf's reappearance. He never actually dies, we just see him fall. Obi-Wan, Yoda and Anakin all truly die -- they just happen to be able to manifest themselves as ghosts on a few occasions, but they're still dead. I don't see it as bringing "a lot of questions which are ignored", since we can see that Ben simply intervenes to guide Luke on a few occasions on his path to becoming a Jedi. That's his purpose, and he doesn't intervene more than that. What's problematic about it? Why would it make more sense for him to start hanging out with Luke all the time?
I don't see it as "convenient storytelling" since the ghosts are not actually needed for the plot to move forward (with the exception perhaps of Ben telling Luke to go to Dagobah, but then again a fix could easily have been found) -- they simply help with Luke's character development.
If you're bothered by them, it's fine, but that doesn't mean they constitute an example of bad writing in the slightest.
|
I am not surprised that you deny it, that's exactly why i said i doubt it will lead anywhere when we discuss the OT here at all
You pretty much denied/or ignored every single potential flaw besides the weakness of the death star (which is probably the most ridiculous weakness in cinema history).
I will just stop to bring up the OT i guess. (at least till we discuss actual tfa/ot scenes here, with footage that is)
I am not sure if i asked it already, but i would be interested to know when you watched the OT the first time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
