Disney Ruined Star Wars

Anchorhead said:

TV’s Frink said:

Collipso said:

This universe is also pointless to the previous one, since that one told a complete story.

Oh ok, then don’t ever watch ESB again, since ANH told a complete story.

Uhh…thank you. I’ve been preaching that for decades. Finally, someone gets it.
😉

ESB is such a well made film though, even if it didn’t give you the characters you wanted based on the first movie. I haven’t seen a SW movie since the OT that was really well made in the classical film sense.

Damn, thanks anyway. What would you recommend? Great looking Criterion Collection Bluray for movie #1 and DVD for Movie #2, how to cut these together?

Collipso said:

Disney Ruined Star Wars said:

Valheru_84 said:

Disney Ruined Star Wars said:

Last Jedi is the last in my ratings.

OT >>>>> TFA > R1 > Prequels > TLJ

I’d agree with that but just swap TFA and R1 around:

OT >>>>> R1 > TFA > Prequels > TLJ

My TLJ rating - 5/100

Haha I think 5/100 might be low but I would definitely give it an F rating.

In my school everythig below a 70/100 is an F.

Huh that’s interesting. And harsh! We had under 60 = F when I was in school.

I would probably rate:

Star Wars = A
The Empire Strikes Back = A
Return of the Jedi = B
The Phantom Menace = F
Attack of the Clones = F
Revenge of the Sith = F
The Force Awakens = C
Rogue One = D
The Last Jedi = F

But I think I need a new grading scale because Attack of the Clones and The Last Jedi are so bad those ratings are not fair to the other F’s.

Maybe I will think about changing R1 to C and making The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith D’s. Sounds good to me.

Valheru_84 said:

Disney Ruined Star Wars said:

Last Jedi is the last in my ratings.

OT >>>>> TFA > R1 > Prequels > TLJ

I’d agree with that but just swap TFA and R1 around:

OT >>>>> R1 > TFA > Prequels > TLJ

My TLJ rating - 5/100

Haha I think 5/100 might be low but I would definitely give it an F rating.

TV’s Frink said:

So many angry people lol. 5/100 is Plan 9 territory. You’re just not being rational.

If you disagree feel free to say so, but calling people angry and irrational because they don’t have the same opinion about a movie as you do seems like really bad form.

I made one post where I generalized and said “ST defenders blah blah…” and the moderator threatened to ban me. So is this kind of posting allowed or what?

Actually that is the source video, I downloaded it + subs from Youtube.

My problem is that I’m trying to edit two movies into a double feature cut. I have the Criteria Collection BluRay of the first movie and it is gorgeous, a true work of art. The second film is likewise but it’s only available on DVD and then upscaled from them. There is a real quality mismatch trying to cut the movies together so I just have to settle for lower quality now, although I’d like to preserve what I can.

I guess there is some jerk in the source file I’m using (I’m sure has some loss on it too) but feels like a bit more on the Handbrake encode. There is a lot of camera movement in the film, not just rotating but actual camera movement on a dolly or tracks or whatever where the jerk becomes distracting. I think there’s also a depth disparity issue between foreground and background objects that are out of focus, but maybe I’m just being fussy. The source picture has better detail but the encodes I did, sometimes you’ll see background objects that like like impressionist painting, they get real blotchy.

Ok I followed your instructions to a “T” but the playback seems jerky on the new video. I’m going to post the mediainfo report here:

General-
Format: MPEG-4
Format profile: Base Media / Version 2
Codec ID: mp42 (isom/mp42)
File size: 392 MiB
Duration: 1 h 38 min
Overall bit rate mode: Variable
Overall bit rate: 555 kb/s

Video-
ID: 1
Format: AVC
Format/Info: Advanced Video Codec
Format profile: Main@L3.1
Format settings: CABAC / 3 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC: Yes
Format settings, RefFrames: 3 frames
Codec ID: avc1
Codec ID/Info: Advanced Video Coding
Duration: 1 h 38 min
Bit rate: 425 kb/s
Width: 1,206 pixels
Height: 720 pixels
Display aspect ration: 5:3
Frame rate mode: Variable
Frame rate: 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Minimum frame rate: 23.974 FPS
Maximum frame rate: 23.981 FPS
Color space: YUV
Chroma subsampling: 4:2:0
Bit depth: 8 bits
Scan type: Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame): 0.020
Stream size: 300 MiB (77%)
Color rang: Limited
Color primaries: BT.709
Transfer characteristics: BT.709
Matrix coefficients: BT.709

Audio-
ID: 2
Format: AAC
Format/Info: Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile: LC
Codec ID: mp4a-40-2
Duration: 1 h 38 min
Source duration: 1 h 38 min
Bit rate mode: Variable
Bit rate: 126 kb/s
Channel(s): 2 channels
Channel positions: Front: L R
Sampling rate: 44.1 kHz
Frame rate: 43.066 FPS (1024 SPF)
Compression mode: Lossy
Stream size: 88.6 MiB (23%)
Source stream size: 88.6 MiB (23%)

I had constant frame rate on the last Handbrake encode but seems like the difference between max and min on the variable framerate source isn’t that much different so is it the problem? Or no deinterlacing / decombing? Just trying to minimize as much loss as possible since this is a slow very visual dramatic film.

Thanks ChainsawAsh, that’s nice of you. I will try all those today.

Last Jedi is the last in my ratings.

OT >>>>> TFA > R1 > Prequels > TLJ

TV’s Frink said:

What do you base that opinion on?

A lot of people I know who saw TLJ but said they’re now “Star Wars’d out”.

DrDre said:

In a way The Last Jedi is Disney’s veiled message, that we will probably never see the OOT released on (4K) bluray or any other form. TLJ’s message is clear. Out with the old, and in with the new. As a fan you either adapt or die. The OOT is the posterboy for the first generation of Star Wars fans. It represents the old, perhaps even the ancient, and not the new. Disney will put all their marketing power in selling this next generation Star Wars. The OOT has no place in this.

I think people are already getting tired of Star Wars. They seem to be miscalculating the market.

ok great I got the subtitles working on handbrake. Is there any loss in image quality? I don’t have any quantitative proof but it seems like the picture on the new file doesn’t pop out as much as the old one, but it could just be my imagination.

DrDre said:

NFBisms said:

DrDre said:

NFBisms said:

DrDre said:

NFBisms said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

I’ve been thinking a bit more about the broad stroke differences between TLJ and the rest of the saga, particulary the OT, and why some find TLJ refreshing, while others reject it. So, for a change I’m not going to talk about Rey’s Force powers, or Luke’s characterization, but more about in-universe history, and how that affects the story.

I think it is fair to say the OT is steeped in melancholy, and powerful connections to the past. The entire premise of ANH is to defeat the evil Empire, and to return the galaxy to a previous state, the fabled Old Republic. Luke is largely driven by the legend of his father, who’s friend Obi-Wan promises to teach him about an all but forgotten religion that both he and Luke’s father were a part of. The rest of the trilogy is largly set up such that Luke needs to vanguish the enemies of old, Darth Vader, and the Emperor, and avoid the pitfalls, that caused Vader, later revealed to be his father, to turn on his friend, and join the dark side.

To a large degree TFA operates in the same way. It treats Luke Skywalker as a legend of old, that both the heroes and villains are looking for. Luke went looking for the first Jedi temple, a place presumably steeped in Jedi history. It’s hinted, that Rey has a strong connection to the past, and Kylo Ren, who’s directly related to two other legends of the past, Han and Leia, was seduced to the dark side by some mysterious larger than life old anti-Yoda figure. Both Rey and Kylo Ren are struggling with their past, and the film ends with Kylo severing one of the links to his past by killing a past legend, while Rey connects with it by finding a past legend.

TLJ completely breaks with this Star Wars tradition. It actively deflates the past by telling us the history and legends we cherish are not as great as we want to believe. It actively cuts almost all ties to the past by killing off the remaining classic heroes (Leia technically not in the film), and even the links to the past TFA introduced. The mysterious Snoke is unceremoniously cast aside, and the secret of Rey’s past is, that she has no past, at least not one that’s relevant to her future. The family connection between good and evil that drove the OT and TFA is all but ignored, and then finally killed for good, when Leia gives up on her son, and Luke dies. What remains is a conflict between new heroes and new villains, that either killed their past, or don’t really have one.

It’s a bold move, which is sadly undercut by a strict adherence to the OT aesthetic and the OT’s basic premise of an Empire versus a small band of rebels. The question is why did the creators and by extension Disney decide to reboot the franchise, whilst also severing most connections to the past? My theory is, that it was done to make Star Wars more accessible to the general audience. Most of us hardcore fans will see the movies anyway. I know I probably will, despite my lack of enthousiasm. Anyone without much knowledge of Star Wars history will be able to see and enjoy episode IX. It’s starting point is similar to episode IV. There’s an evil Empire led by an evil maniac, a struggling rebellion led by an aspiring Jedi, and it looks like it’s part of the Star Wars brand. You need not know more.

It IS a bold move and one in which I think needed to happen for SW to evolve.

I might agree, if the bold move was used to create a new story, and new Star Wars lore but it wasn’t. It’s a reboot, and one that strips Star Wars from much of the deeper layers and themes, that made it stand out from the average blockbuster, in my opinion of course.

I think the themes and layers of TLJ are deeper and a little more meaningful than anything in both the OT and PT, especially in how the philosophical ideas tackled are all about our understanding of those previously established themes. It may be more of a meta-deconstruction of the themes, rather than a continuing re-affirmation of them, but they are still there and are still needed to be understood.

Well to me deconstructing and understanding are two very different things. IMO TLJ deconstructs the themes of the previous films not to provide understanding, but to devalue them. It’s thesis is not just that these themes are far less relevant going forward, but weren’t all that important in the first place, punctuated by Yoda’s page turner remark. The fact that the legends of old are used (or abused depending on your point of view) to transmit this message is also in of itself a clear attempt at devaluation, since evdn they are made to adhere to the new order.

Well, the two aren’t really disparate concepts, right? You can’t begin to deconstruct or devalue effectively without understanding what it is you’re deconstructing or devaluing in the first place. I wasn’t saying that TLJ was trying to provide clarity to the original trilogy’s themes - I do think TLJ and the originals are thematically different, just that they don’t conflict or clash like you say. TLJ can’t take away from the originals in my mind, because what it has to say, while different, is dependent on also understanding what the originals had to say and what it was that drove those films.

I think it’s disingenuous to say TLJ is an average blockbuster or that anything it has to say is on that level of Transformers, or Geostorm, or Avengers. If anything, it’s a little too heady for its own good. I definitely think it has pacing and tonal issues, as well as one too many plot threads that clearly have muddled what it was trying to say in the end, but its intentions and fundamental ideas have more depth than just “insert SW brand here.” It can’t be that, as well as trying to burn down Star Wars traditions, at the same time. It’s trying to be so much more, and whether or not it succeeds is just a matter of opinion.

And while something can be said about how it uses an evil Empire and plucky rebellion, as well as TIEs, X-Wings, and lightsabers, that’s all superficial when what informs and drives those things are clearly different enough to not be “Star Wars” to many people thematically.

Yes, but the whole point is, that the general audience doesn’t care about the themes that drove Star Wars in the past. In my view the current owners of the franchise feel Star Wars’ themes and connections to the past is a stumbling block for the general audience to connect with the material. In order to facilitate the growth of the potential market of these films, these themes and historic connections need to be simplified or removed. Star Wars is to be molded in the image of other franchises like the MCU universe, where connections between films are superficial at best. Anyone can watch a future MCU film, and enjoy them on their own terms, without having seen past entries. So will it be for Star Wars.

My point was that TLJ went out of its way to be alienating and have more depth than Star Wars as a franchise typically has. I don’t think the thematic differences = dumber, because the film was way too philosophical and dependent on understanding the previous concepts to be “simplified.” What it tackles about shame, hero worship, legacy, regret, and failure - the general human condition - is something that the typically morally binary Star Wars hadn’t even touched until now. But, like I said, it only touches those things in the context of us initially believing what we have about Star Wars as a universe.

Sure, this dumb hypothetical general audience doesn’t care about anything below surface level, but that’s the whole point. They could do anything with the Star Wars brand and it wouldn’t matter. Why would choosing to do and include things that makes Porkins4real’s 5-year-old ask “why Luke do that” and fans like you angry mean wider MCU-like appeal? The MCU is successful because it taps into that general audience AND die-hard comic book nerds, not one over the other. TLJ tried (imo) maybe way too hard to not be mass-appeal and bit itself in the ass critically. I don’t think the idea that Kennedy or Johnson thought doing that was a way to simplify things for a mass audience makes sense when you look at it.

Star Wars and Jaws were the two movies that heralded the blockbuster as a market/genre in the first place. Adhering to what Star Wars has been doing since 1977 would be what you described.

TLJ was only alienating to a group of die-hard fans. The critics and general audience ate it up. Many fans seem to be happy with it also. That’s about as general as the appeal can get. Like I said, I predict that there will be much less connective tissue between Star Wars films going forward. Individual directors may rise above the occassion, and provide depth and nuance, but to Star Wars as a brand and business, that won’t matter. Star Wars will become the MCU with space ships and lightsabers. Star Wars is hardly new and original anymore. However, for me personally something essential has been lost.

It has a 51% audience score on RT, which is as close to 100% divided as you can get. And aside from probably inaccurate and irrelevant website ratings systems, you can’t honestly believe TLJ is only getting flack from die-hard fans, right? It is intensely polarizing all over the internet - you’ve definitely observed that - and for me personally, it is irl as well.

(Tbh, I don’t like the assertion that only this upper tier of fan is who doesn’t like TLJ. Anyone can dislike this movie, not just the “die-hard fans.” Anyone can have problems with it, not just “woke” fans. )

That’s all beside the point, though. How does TLJ of all films support the claim that it will become MCU with ships and lightsabers? I don’t even disagree that that’s what KK is trying to do, with standalones coming out every year, but TLJ of all things is what proves that? If anything, it shows me that they’re willing to take risks that the MCU wouldn’t take. It can’t be so thematically incongruous and subversive to the SW formula for you, but also too safe and simplified.

Well, I believe the imdb rating of 7.6 by over 200,000 users is more representative of the general audience rating. This seems in line with most well recieved blockbusters.

Having read the reviews my take is that most of the harsh criticism against TLJ is directed at it’s use of the classic characters, how it fits in the larger Star Wars universe, and to what extend it adheres to established canon. All of these criticisms are typical for die-hard fans, not the general audience. Two more general criricisms I have read, are pacing issues, bad comedy, and useless story threads, but I don’t believe these are at the heart of the most vehement objections to the film.

I don’t agree this film is only criticized by die-hard fans.

Kathleen Kennedy track record:

TFA - successful

TLJ - worst audience rating of all SW movies
R1 - basically fired the director
Solo - fired the directors and seems like a complete write-off
Ep. 9 - fired the director

Even Rick McCallum is shaking his head right now.

I see.

The prequels made lots of money. Is that how we are judging these things now?

DrDre said:
It’s not ridiculous. It’s about the message the scene sends to the viewer. Here we have Rey towering over Luke holding a lightsaber, forcing him to tell the truth, which he eventually does. Luke looks old, worn, and pathetic, while Rey stands over, and lectures him. If Luke could have easily bested Rey, why did he end up on his back, spilling his guts?

You know there was a time when young people learned from their elders, whether we are talking about Jedi in a movie or boxers or people learning on the job at work. The new generation comes in, they are physically healthier and in their prime, they have more stamina, and they have ambition, ready to seize their opportunity and make something of their life. What they don’t have is wisdom or skill. They train, they work hard, and when they no longer need teaching, they have everything they need to accede and take their place in the primary role.

This narrative has happened billions of times in the real world. And it has been mimicked thousands upon thousands of times over the years in films.

Whatever happened to those days?

Since when is it en vogue for an upstart to start off with skill they need? Talent is fine…but unearned skill? And to lecture their elders as if they have been there before, haha!

I suspect what really happened with the Disney movies is one, they have too many cooks in the kitchen and too many products to sell in the movies. Developing characters takes hard work and time on screen. If you’re out of time because the movie is filled with so much BS from the toy department, well I guess you just cut time by giving the hero everything they need from Day 1. Another issue is the team working on these movies is not working together under a single vision and story. They gave control on the TFA to an episodic TV writer. Then the next movie was written by an entirely new person with (obviously) and entirely different vision. It’s really hard or impossible to have meaningful character development this way.

Porkins4real said:

TV’s Frink said:

“There has been an awakening.”

Why does it have to come from her parents?

It is kind of lame storytelling to just have things ‘appear’ out of the blue. - Why is Rey so powerful ‘cause she is’ is not very satisfying.

I like the idea of Rey’s lineage (or lack thereof). Referring to her parents as ‘nobodies’ though is not cool. They could have been fine upstanding people. Not everyone has to be talented at one particular thing to be a somebody or a good person.

I don’t like her prowess with no training though. Talent and skill are not the same.

adywan said:

In movies you tell by showing.

Then please point me to where we see, in ESB, Luke’s vision of his friends being tortured? I’m pretty sure that whole scene is just done through narration.

There is, in fact, an entire scene where Han is strapped to some sort of torture device. Vader stands over him. Han’s screams are heard in the background. “They never even asked me any questions?” Leia cries “why are they doing this?”

dahmage said:

• the movie should have told us that

I suppose if a viewer had this criticism, it means they were unsatisfied with the amount of information they received in the movie.

dahmage said:

• no, it shouldn’t tell, it should show

The filmmaker has two ways to convey information:
through exposition
through drama

The audience could be given more information through exposition, but this should be reserved for minor background details. Parts of the story that are extremely important must be portrayed dramatically, or you will get people like me and DrDre who don’t like the movie and aren’t satisfied with what we’ve been presented.

dahmage said:

• well, i didn’t see that, they should have told me

I think this is the same point you made in #1?

Besides whatever shoehorned appearances he had in the prequels, the only time I saw Chewie look bad was in that jail cell in ESB. His fur was a mess.

Mrebo said:

After 34 years why does Chewie look so good? I thought characters were supposed to change. I don’t want it merely told in some monologue nor have to go read about it in the novel. I want it shown on screen, his full hair care routine.

Your sarcasm came in that thing? Nice! C’mon… 😃

dahmage said:

Disney Ruined Star Wars said:

DrDre said:
A single 30 second scene, which has Luke telling us about a bad vision is not a proper set up. Show not tell still remains the best technique.

This is really true for me. These new films are all tell, tell, tell. Oh look at this flashy thing. I think the prequels were criticized for having so much clutter on the screen visually. These Disney films deserve to be criticized for having too much clutter in the narrative. Pointless characters, pointless subplots. Just enough time to tell you a thing or two and then back to the gimmicks. /mad

So, i know that i am combining complaints from different people. but this is what i am hearing, and it is hard to separate the voices sometimes.

• the movie should have told us that
• no, it shouldn’t tell, it should show
• well, i didn’t see that, they should have told me

In movies you tell by showing.

dahmage said:

i now wonder which ones of us you view with this attitude.

Nobody in particular. I haven’t been here that long to know too many people apart.