On January 12 2020 07:32 Falling wrote: although not matching Lord of the Rings perhaps, but closer to that side than Transformers or WWE plot lines.
Sci-Fi and WWE character powers and plots run along a precarious thin line.
I recall a 60s or 70s Star Trek TV episode. The entire episode the crew of Star Trek are slowly getting fucked into a corner. Finally, at the very end of the show it turns out the Star Trek people are being manipulated by a "child god" who is just playing with them for fun. The "child god"s parents appear and tell him to quite playing around and leave the humans alone.
This is an example of a storyline that fucks up the StarTrek universe. Any episode could have any number of crazy circumstances that put the Star Trek crew in an impossible situation only to have the rug pulled out from under the audience as we find out a "god" was just screwing around.
On the WWE side. bizarre things like Crow Sting, the Undertaker, and Doink the Evil Clown worked. In the face of those 3 I can name you dozens of characters that bombed very badly.
Any of these WWE characters that can get badly fucked up by poor creatives at the top of the corporate ladder can be rescued by a phenomenal in ring performance though.
Regarding the 1977 movie. I just didn't buy the ending when Luke was about to drop that bomb in the hole in the DeathStar. When Obi-1 starting talking to Luke about "use the force luke" I just didn't buy it.. I know many others thought it was great and amazing. It just didn't do it for me. Other people I know view that ending moment as one of the most epic moments in movie history. Put in WWE terms... some think the Undertaker is brilliant and others , like me, are pretty luke warm on the guy. I'm a big Raven/Scott Levy fan. He has a small but rabid , almost cult like fan base.
I watched the film with low expectations. I have to say it was enjoyable but i mostly handwaved the questionable parts myself so that i can keep enjoying it.
Not like i was expected incredible stuff from starwars anymore.
I liked some of the more obvious plottwists like Rey Palpatine stuff (like her inheriting the sith and why she was so strong) and generally that they tied this trilogy with palpatine being the big bad so that it thematically match with the prequel and original trilogy which i appreciate
On January 12 2020 07:32 Falling wrote: although not matching Lord of the Rings perhaps, but closer to that side than Transformers or WWE plot lines.
Sci-Fi and WWE character powers and plots run along a precarious thin line.
I recall a 60s or 70s Star Trek TV episode. The entire episode the crew of Star Trek are slowly getting fucked into a corner. Finally, at the very end of the show it turns out the Star Trek people are being manipulated by a "child god" who is just playing with them for fun. The "child god"s parents appear and tell him to quite playing around and leave the humans alone.
This is an example of a storyline that fucks up the StarTrek universe. Any episode could have any number of crazy circumstances that put the Star Trek crew in an impossible situation only to have the rug pulled out from under the audience as we find out a "god" was just screwing around.
On the WWE side. bizarre things like Crow Sting, the Undertaker, and Doink the Evil Clown worked. In the face of those 3 I can name you dozens of characters that bombed very badly.
Any of these WWE characters that can get badly fucked up by poor creatives at the top of the corporate ladder can be rescued by a phenomenal in ring performance though.
Regarding the 1977 movie. I just didn't buy the ending when Luke was about to drop that bomb in the hole in the DeathStar. When Obi-1 starting talking to Luke about "use the force luke" I just didn't buy it.. I know many others thought it was great and amazing. It just didn't do it for me. Other people I know view that ending moment as one of the most epic moments in movie history. Put in WWE terms... some think the Undertaker is brilliant and others , like me, are pretty luke warm on the guy. I'm a big Raven/Scott Levy fan. He has a small but rabid , almost cult like fan base.
That kind of is Star Trek though, like it or loathe it. Such entities outside of Q are usually restricted to a single episode and the show is much more about how the smart people with their principles deal with outlandish situations than the entities themselves, so I’m largely OK with that.
I’m binging quite hard on it at the minute so it happens, there’s a ton of episodes and I’m sure some contradictions occur if one was to look, but largely the rules of the universe are at least vaguely consistent at least. Consistent enough to not really take me out of the show anyway. This technology does this, this thing can interfere with that and Federation ethics stop x and y courses of action.
Star Wars the powerful characters are also main characters, so their powers and how they work do thus take on a bigger importance.
Like previously mentioned by others and myself the escalation of Force powers has been a thing in various Star Wars media, the EU was guilty of this too, which makes it harder to make engaging stories that feature force users.
I cant see why TFA is so praised, it was a bad remake of the OT, A brat Villain (compare this to Vader), a Mary Sue (compare this with Luke), A bunch of guys who dont know to each other at all in the movie but they are the best friends (wtf!!!), an idiotic General= Hux, I got to admit that Snoke was literally destroyed in TLJ, so no fault here, old "heroes" irrelevant, for me was disgusting how they portrayed the old characters in general, ahh but we got the super duper Death Star, the female Yoda (those scenes with that CGI character were just meh...), and a light saber in form of a Cross just for the heck of it, something else that is mind boggling is how the heck after only 30 years the called First order is the main force in the galaxy, but you know if a dead guy can build more than a thousand of star destroyers underground with death stars capabilities..., well in reality none of these 3 new movies makes any sense, they are absurd , and they have plot holes so big that the newest death star looks tiny.
On January 12 2020 10:00 Falling wrote: I have a hard time thinking which is worse as they are bad in different ways. But the sequels have wrecked any sensible future stories.
What do future story tellers have to deal with? Hyper-space kamikazi ships, obsoleting capital ships, TIE fighters that track in hyperspace in real time, planet destroying lasers on regular old capital ships, Jedi teleportation, invincible Jedi ghosts who can lightning strike the physical world, god-tier force lightning that can on one hand wipe out entire fleets, and on the other hand be blocked by a simple lightsaber. Fleets and Force powers magically appearing when convenient to the plot.
There was a time where I thought it would be fun to be able write a Star Wars tie in novel (never would happen of course.) But this universe? I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's so actively stupid I can't even imagine how to tell a story that isn't just god-Jedi throwing fleets from the sky and half the galaxy wiped out by these capital ship death stars. It's a story, but it ain't Star Wars anymore.
Prequels were poorly executed, but had some interesting ideas. However, you could still play in the universe and come up with fun stories based on the established rules. Now it's story-anarchy. And to add insult to injury all three sequel films are the epitome of Disney direct-to-dvd sequels: simply retell the old story with the next generation. Ugh.
edit. It's not just on lore that doesn't hold up btw. Granted, Prequel Palpatine's plot is unnecessarily complicated (Episode II in particular), but while TFA is largely competent, RJ and JJ are complete goobers when plotting the last two. Both rely heavily on coincidence, contrivance, and happenstance to move some pretty basic plot stuff along. They can make it look pretty, but the actual story they are moving along is pretty incompetent.
Its hard to disagree with much of this, but I think we just have different ideas of what makes a good movie.
I didn't really see it terms of future stories or movies because I don't think that's what they were aiming for with either the originals or the sequels. If you look at it that way then yeah, that sucks.
Watching ep 9, I had as much fun as I would watching a Marvel movie and I put it on the same level when it comes to the action and visuals, except with far better music and a fairly bad plot. I can enjoy a movie that has a really stupid or bad plot, but i get why people can't.
My biggest problem with the sequels is they felt like it was necessary to explain fucking everything so at times it felt like reading a 300 page plot synopsis for a 1 page plot. They tried to put complex ideas in there, but it completely failed because of the way it was organized and the fact that there just wasn't enough depth to the story to begin with for complex stuff to work, hence the failure of ep 8.
The original trilogy used exactly the amount of lore it needed to be able to tell a story, and no more. The most complex lore was the backstory of the characters, which added depth to the movies without burdening the viewer with the complex and incredibly dull and confusing politics and economics of the wider galaxy.
The sequels used less lore than they should have, so the lack of interesting backstory of the characters left the viewer alienated. What was Kylo Ren doing for most of his life? It would have been better to introduce him in ep. 8 or right at the end of ep. 7 and just have people tell stories about this spoiled brat, the lesser Darth Vader with a nasty edge. That way the character means something to you and you don't just react with "This guy sucks" when you see him. I think Kylo had potential to be the best character in the sequels but they just didn't pull it off very well. The scenes between him and Rey all felt exactly the same until near the end of episode 9. What's the point in that? The action felt real and the acting was pretty good and the writing was pretty good in individual scenes, they just didn't translate that into a good overall story.
Basically what i'm saying is that the sequels fixed what was wrong with the prequels but went too far in the other direction, and then made some other mistakes too, but they aren't that bad as movies, and I don't think they are as terrible as some people say they are.
Episode 7 did some things quite well. It established the key characters and a sensible enough plot to work with. It wasn’t perfect, but it did work. I liked it, and it seems most people liked it as well. Some Star Wars cliches like a superweapon or saying “I have a bad feeling about this” don’t make it a bad movie.
My biggest gripe, which certainly isn’t a small one, is that the Republic barely even exists in that movie. Kind of diminishes the work of the previous movies in establishing it.
On January 13 2020 05:43 LegalLord wrote: Episode 7 did some things quite well. It established the key characters and a sensible enough plot to work with. It wasn’t perfect, but it did work. I liked it, and it seems most people liked it as well. Some Star Wars cliches like a superweapon or saying “I have a bad feeling about this” don’t make it a bad movie.
My biggest gripe, which certainly isn’t a small one, is that the Republic barely even exists in that movie. Kind of diminishes the work of the previous movies in establishing it.
I think people liked it, flaws included as a rebooting of Star Wars with that ‘feel’ intact. A starting point from which to expand and do more with with the subsequent films. A good start in short, safe but solid.
The subsequent failure of the sequel trilogy to do that makes TFA look worse in retrospect.
@Jimmy Another thing did a thing is no defence of whether it is good or not. I enjoyed the occasional Next Gen episode, but I couldn't be called a fan. So 'Star Trek did a thing' is not a very persuasive defence. I particularly have a low view of episodic tv compared to the more modern interconnected story lines. Yeah, episodic sci-fi is more likely to forget what they did from episode to episode. That's a double strike in my book. WWE is just a non-sequitur.
My biggest problem with the sequels is they felt like it was necessary to explain fucking everything so at times it felt like reading a 300 page plot synopsis for a 1 page plot. They tried to put complex ideas in there, but it completely failed because of the way it was organized and the fact that there just wasn't enough depth to the story to begin with for complex stuff to work, hence the failure of ep 8.
The original trilogy used exactly the amount of lore it needed to be able to tell a story, and no more. The most complex lore was the backstory of the characters, which added depth to the movies without burdening the viewer with the complex and incredibly dull and confusing politics and economics of the wider galaxy.
Well, as to that, I blame whoever's idea it was to dynamite the New Republic, the Jedi Order, all in the opening credits. They made an unnecessarily complicated set up that NEEDED more explanation than they gave. It could have been a really simple set up: N Republic has been fighting the remnants of the old empire on and off for 30 years (which gives them tons of room for future stories in between compared to 'it was peaceful for 30 years'), and then some warlord unites disparate factions, or an alien polity breaks away from the New Republic, or maybe the equivalent of the Russian mafia- a galactic spanning syndicate- has filled in the power gap since the fall of the Empire etc. Civil War. Boom. Easy set up for endless stories. Introduce shipyards, capitals, and hyperspace lanes being important strategic points and you don't even need endless supplies of super weapons.
Then TLJ progressed the story less than an inch, so Rise felt the need to tell 2-4 stories worth to make up the difference. JJ really should have pushed for two films to make it a quadrology... and then jump ahead 15-20 years so he didn't need to magic multiple fleets into existence. The Resistance was absolutely dead in the water by the end of TLJ, for all its triumphant ending- false bravado. But I suspect there was far too much executive control to swing that.
I didn't really see it terms of future stories or movies because I don't think that's what they were aiming for with either the originals or the sequels. If you look at it that way then yeah, that sucks.
Well, I also don't think they made good stories in the moment either (in retrospect TFA falls off and TLJ was bad on the first view). But it's all the worse because of what it does to future stories.
Basically what i'm saying is that the sequels fixed what was wrong with the prequels but went too far in the other direction, and then made some other mistakes too,
This I agree. They were hyper-allergic to any backstory for fear of doing 'politics' because that was supposedly the main thing people hated about the prequels. So the 'solution' was to never explain anything about the state of the galaxy. Whereas Episode IV is rather clever in dropping hints of what is going on in the wider view without bogging down the story. And then all three films wasted their time mixing and matching plot lines from the OT rather than trying something new.
On January 13 2020 12:41 Falling wrote: @Jimmy Another thing did a thing is no defence of whether it is good or not. I enjoyed the occasional Next Gen episode, but I couldn't be called a fan. So 'Star Trek did a thing' is not a very persuasive defence. I particularly have a low view of episodic tv compared to the more modern interconnected story lines. Yeah, episodic sci-fi is more likely to forget what they did from episode to episode. That's a double strike in my book. WWE is just a non-sequitur.
My biggest problem with the sequels is they felt like it was necessary to explain fucking everything so at times it felt like reading a 300 page plot synopsis for a 1 page plot. They tried to put complex ideas in there, but it completely failed because of the way it was organized and the fact that there just wasn't enough depth to the story to begin with for complex stuff to work, hence the failure of ep 8.
The original trilogy used exactly the amount of lore it needed to be able to tell a story, and no more. The most complex lore was the backstory of the characters, which added depth to the movies without burdening the viewer with the complex and incredibly dull and confusing politics and economics of the wider galaxy.
Well, as to that, I blame whoever's idea it was to dynamite the New Republic, the Jedi Order, all in the opening credits. They made an unnecessarily complicated set up that NEEDED more explanation than they gave. It could have been a really simple set up: N Republic has been fighting the remnants of the old empire on and off for 30 years (which gives them tons of room for future stories in between compared to 'it was peaceful for 30 years'), and then some warlord unites disparate factions, or an alien polity breaks away from the New Republic, or maybe the equivalent of the Russian mafia- a galactic spanning syndicate- has filled in the power gap since the fall of the Empire etc. Civil War. Boom. Easy set up for endless stories. Introduce shipyards, capitals, and hyperspace lanes being important strategic points and you don't even need endless supplies of super weapons.
Then TLJ progressed the story less than an inch, so Rise felt the need to tell 2-4 stories worth to make up the difference. JJ really should have pushed for two films to make it a quadrology... and then jump ahead 15-20 years so he didn't need to magic multiple fleets into existence. The Resistance was absolutely dead in the water by the end of TLJ, for all its triumphant ending- false bravado. But I suspect there was far too much executive control to swing that.
I didn't really see it terms of future stories or movies because I don't think that's what they were aiming for with either the originals or the sequels. If you look at it that way then yeah, that sucks.
Well, I also don't think they made good stories in the moment either (in retrospect TFA falls off and TLJ was bad on the first view). But it's all the worse because of what it does to future stories.
Basically what i'm saying is that the sequels fixed what was wrong with the prequels but went too far in the other direction, and then made some other mistakes too,
This I agree. They were hyper-allergic to any backstory for fear of doing 'politics' because that was supposedly the main thing people hated about the prequels. So the 'solution' was to never explain anything about the state of the galaxy. Whereas Episode IV is rather clever in dropping hints of what is going on in the wider view without bogging down the story. And then all three films wasted their time mixing and matching plot lines from the OT rather than trying something new.
It does increasingly frustrate me seeing rough plot outlines that make much more sense from posts on the internet from non-writers that what makes it into these mega franchises that I want to be good. Same with GoT.
As you say extraordinary things require some explanation if it’s a continuation of a story. The Empire can just be there, and bad and have a planet killing weapon because it’s our first exposure to that universe. The First Order less so and Jesus the Final Order bloody hell much less so again.
I don’t think you need a huge amount of title craw, but a bit anyway. For those who don’t care it’s not a huge injection of space politics, but it grounds it a bit.
Retconning 8 and 9 briefly, TFA should be (something like) that the Rebellion splintered and failed to restore the old Republic once the unifying threat of the Empire was wiped. The First Order are the remnants of the Empire’s military that wanted to keep fighting for order in the galaxy (hey see what I did there), who have been growing in strength upon acquiring themselves a new Sith Lord, exploiting the other political infighting etc. If they MUST have a doomsday weapon I don’t think it should be operational yet, they should be a formidable threat but not quite the Empire straight away.
Then you can let TFA breathe a bit, focus more on the new characters and building them up, plus the associated universe stuff such as Finn and defecting stormtroopers and how that all works.
Also I’m sure there is some gap in chronology between the new trilogy films but how big? There’s clearly a big gap between 1 and 2 given Anakin’s in adolescence, between the OT films etc. It’s a minor quibble/major in a way because to me they feel they’re all occurring very soon after each other. If you have more obvious gaps then ‘how have they done x already?’ is a bit less of an issue.
There’s an infuriating sense of stuff being shelved because ‘people didn’t like it’ rather than some courage in executing said things better.
‘People didn’t like space politics in the prequels, we better not explain anything, or have interesting political angles’ being a rather pertinent one. My favourite shows are all rather damn political, or films have some philosophical analogy running through them, the issue with the Prequels was that they did such things horribly.
Then they go and throw out everything from TLJ, not because it was necessarily all terrible but just because. And some of that I felt was worth exploring but JJ seemed to take gleeful delight in actively retconning such things.
An overview of what's allegedly Colin Trevorrow's early draft (before he was replaced by JJ Abrams). It's over 2 hours, so better strap in. Trevorrow still got story credit in the film, so some parts of the final product are definitely by him.
Planned sabotage on the Kuat shipyards? I'm already sad that this film was not made. I've said since TFA they need to move away from super weapons- to do that they need to make shipyards targets to capture.
Just some general comments, for whom it may concern: I enjoyed episode 7. To me it was a nice SF-action movie with acceptable story and writing. I did not mind that it basically was e remake of episode 4.
So I watched episode 8. There is nothing good about that movie, not a single redeeming quality. It is episode 1 level bad.
And therefore, I did not watch episode 9. Exactly as I did not watch episode 2 and 3. After seeing episode 1, there really was no need to spend any money to support this mess.
If you complain that the movies are shit and Disney is all about the money, maybe you should consider not going to the cinema and giving Disney your money. Because if you go and complain afterwards, there is no incentive for anything to change. That is your power as a customer, exercise it.
If you go to the cinema again and again and again, regardless of how many terrible movies they create, that is on you. The obvious result is: they will continue to create terrible movies.
On December 25 2019 09:43 LegalLord wrote: The 86% audience approval makes far, far more sense than the mind-boggling 91% critic approval that TLJ got. I see why most people would give a favorable appraisal of this movie, even if a lot of folks don’t like it.
some guy polled the RT site every 5 minutes for 3 days and it never moved off of 86% at any time as the # of reviews went from 1,200 to over 50,000.
it is clear the 86% is BS.
RT gets out of this by saying "ooops a bug in our `system` had the calculation improperly stuck at 86%. Oops we're sorry for this issue. Mistakes happen. Again, we're sorry.". However, for the first few days after the movie's release the incorrect audience score served its purpose. A giant media conglomerate will be pleased by this "algorithm error".
The signal Rotten Tomatoes is sending to the various media giants is that when a media giant's back is up against the wall and a franchise the media giant owns is in danger of being damaged ... The Rotten Tomatoes people willl do what they can to protect the multi-billion dollar franchise. This is a smart gambit by Rotten Tomatoes.
RT messed up again with their user review ratings for DR. Who. I overestimated how smart the Rotten Tomatoes people are. I thought this Star Wars 86% forever score was a strategic gambit and they'd apologize for a "software bug" in their system. LOL.
Silly me, RT are just a bunch of idiots.
With the Star Wars user review incident and now this DR. Who thing RT's audience review scores have a lot less credibility.
On December 25 2019 09:43 LegalLord wrote: The 86% audience approval makes far, far more sense than the mind-boggling 91% critic approval that TLJ got. I see why most people would give a favorable appraisal of this movie, even if a lot of folks don’t like it.
some guy polled the RT site every 5 minutes for 3 days and it never moved off of 86% at any time as the # of reviews went from 1,200 to over 50,000.
it is clear the 86% is BS.
RT gets out of this by saying "ooops a bug in our `system` had the calculation improperly stuck at 86%. Oops we're sorry for this issue. Mistakes happen. Again, we're sorry.". However, for the first few days after the movie's release the incorrect audience score served its purpose. A giant media conglomerate will be pleased by this "algorithm error".
The signal Rotten Tomatoes is sending to the various media giants is that when a media giant's back is up against the wall and a franchise the media giant owns is in danger of being damaged ... The Rotten Tomatoes people willl do what they can to protect the multi-billion dollar franchise. This is a smart gambit by Rotten Tomatoes.
RT messed up again with their user review ratings for DR. Who. I overestimated how smart the Rotten Tomatoes people are. I thought this Star Wars 86% forever score was a strategic gambit and they'd apologize for a "software bug" in their system. LOL.
Silly me, RT are just a bunch of idiots.
With the Star Wars user review incident and now this DR. Who thing RT's audience review scores have a lot less credibility.
It seems fine with anything where there isn't a masses of fan weirdly proud to declare to the universe that they hate something togheter. I mean something like Greys Anatomy has over two times the audience DW has and you don't see a bazillion angry review all of the time. Buttom line, I just don't look for review for those thing, it's just to tieredsome. But RT is fine with everything that isn't stuck in the Internet hate train.
On January 15 2020 18:05 Malinor wrote: Just some general comments, for whom it may concern: I enjoyed episode 7. To me it was a nice SF-action movie with acceptable story and writing. I did not mind that it basically was e remake of episode 4.
So I watched episode 8. There is nothing good about that movie, not a single redeeming quality. It is episode 1 level bad.
And therefore, I did not watch episode 9. Exactly as I did not watch episode 2 and 3. After seeing episode 1, there really was no need to spend any money to support this mess.
If you complain that the movies are shit and Disney is all about the money, maybe you should consider not going to the cinema and giving Disney your money. Because if you go and complain afterwards, there is no incentive for anything to change. That is your power as a customer, exercise it.
If you go to the cinema again and again and again, regardless of how many terrible movies they create, that is on you. The obvious result is: they will continue to create terrible movies.
I did exactly the same.
Seeing all you people that bitched endlessly about 8 now doing the same about 9, despite knowing that the ship has sunk, is actually ridiculous.
Well, I didn't go to IX. Do I win anything? Or does that just make me petty?
But maybe people feel a sort of loss over a franchise they loved. So you deal with it in different ways- one is to discuss what worked and what didn't. But in the meantime, you have an endless deluge of articles saying the film you dislike is the best ever, and you are toxic for disliking it. Well, that'll generate more conversation than if a movie was bad, everyone agrees and moves on. You may think we are ridiculous, but I have never seen a film defended to the hilt like RJ's either. And really weird defences too- like the OT was actually bad all along and you are being inconsistent because RJ is supposedly bad in exactl the same ways.
On December 25 2019 09:43 LegalLord wrote: The 86% audience approval makes far, far more sense than the mind-boggling 91% critic approval that TLJ got. I see why most people would give a favorable appraisal of this movie, even if a lot of folks don’t like it.
some guy polled the RT site every 5 minutes for 3 days and it never moved off of 86% at any time as the # of reviews went from 1,200 to over 50,000.
it is clear the 86% is BS.
RT gets out of this by saying "ooops a bug in our `system` had the calculation improperly stuck at 86%. Oops we're sorry for this issue. Mistakes happen. Again, we're sorry.". However, for the first few days after the movie's release the incorrect audience score served its purpose. A giant media conglomerate will be pleased by this "algorithm error".
The signal Rotten Tomatoes is sending to the various media giants is that when a media giant's back is up against the wall and a franchise the media giant owns is in danger of being damaged ... The Rotten Tomatoes people willl do what they can to protect the multi-billion dollar franchise. This is a smart gambit by Rotten Tomatoes.
RT messed up again with their user review ratings for DR. Who. I overestimated how smart the Rotten Tomatoes people are. I thought this Star Wars 86% forever score was a strategic gambit and they'd apologize for a "software bug" in their system. LOL.
Silly me, RT are just a bunch of idiots.
With the Star Wars user review incident and now this DR. Who thing RT's audience review scores have a lot less credibility.
It seems fine with anything where there isn't a masses of fan weirdly proud to declare to the universe that they hate something togheter. I mean something like Greys Anatomy has over two times the audience DW has and you don't see a bazillion angry review all of the time. Buttom line, I just don't look for review for those thing, it's just to tieredsome. But RT is fine with everything that isn't stuck in the Internet hate train.
and what qualifies for "masses of fans weirdly proud"... who knows.
meh, if they've done it twice in this short a span of time who knows what other BS they're pulling. I'm too lazy to follow up on their other potential BS moves. I know there is some white noise about the Captain Marvel movie.. but again I'm too lazy to research it.
On January 16 2020 10:48 Falling wrote: Well, I didn't go to IX. Do I win anything? Or does that just make me petty?
But maybe people feel a sort of loss over a franchise they loved. So you deal with it in different ways- one is to discuss what worked and what didn't. But in the meantime, you have an endless deluge of articles saying the film you dislike is the best ever, and you are toxic for disliking it. Well, that'll generate more conversation than if a movie was bad, everyone agrees and moves on. You may think we are ridiculous, but I have never seen a film defended to the hilt like RJ's either. And really weird defences too- like the OT was actually bad all along and you are being inconsistent because RJ is supposedly bad in exactl the same ways.
The consensus amongst the casual in here is it is a 6.5/10 movie. That's the consensus I've gathered by casuals outside of the TL forum as well. Myself, i gave it a 6.5/10.
A friend of a friend, has a giant Star Wars icon tattoo-ed on his back. His wife spent 2 hours doing this guy's Palpatine make up for opening night. He thought the movie was very good but not great. I don't know enough hard core Star Wars fans to get a "read of the room" though.
Given the corner into which Rian Johnson painted Disney I think Disney et al have done a damn good job recovering from the previous movie disaster.
Disney has had two big disasters since they took over the franchise. The Battlefront 2 video game and the Rian Johnson debacle. Their responses were Episode 9 and "Jedi Fallen Order". Both played it relatively safe and both were effective in helping the franchise recover somewhat.
Disney has fucked up big time since acquiring the Star Wars franchise. However, there are also some very smart and very talented people working at/for Disney as well. Don't sell that group short.
Don't explain politics - just want to mention that JJ isn't exactly known for making movies that explain a lot. He's known for a good rebooting, nostalgia movies with action. At least that's what I think and I believe I am not the only one.
Considering he did E7 and 9 and the best place to explain stuff was E7, well, sad story
I'm not gonna judge him based on E9 although I don't think he's that good as they think. I'm more shocked that LucasFilm made a trilogy without a trilogy plan and this nah - yeah - nah - yeah shit happened.
On January 16 2020 10:48 Falling wrote: Well, I didn't go to IX. Do I win anything? Or does that just make me petty?
But maybe people feel a sort of loss over a franchise they loved. So you deal with it in different ways- one is to discuss what worked and what didn't. But in the meantime, you have an endless deluge of articles saying the film you dislike is the best ever, and you are toxic for disliking it. Well, that'll generate more conversation than if a movie was bad, everyone agrees and moves on. You may think we are ridiculous, but I have never seen a film defended to the hilt like RJ's either. And really weird defences too- like the OT was actually bad all along and you are being inconsistent because RJ is supposedly bad in exactl the same ways.
Such are the schisms, it’s a confusing media landscape.
I’d say there definitely is a toxic element to the backlash, but then rather be countering that element and critiquing the film on its own merits, a certain segment of people then backlash to the backlash and say the films are great, or the OT wasn’t all that or whatever.
Thankfully you fine folks aren’t of the toxic variety and the thread has been a decent discussion.
EPT
