- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
Don’t worry I fixed it.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
The Force Awakens: Official Review Thread - ** SPOILERS ** — Page 122
- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
I wasn’t exactly wild about Rouge One. No internet reviewer gave me that opinion.
The Studios have more creative control than in any point in Hollywood’s history. Abrams was chosen because he was the ideal studio director: one that could be molded by the producers to churn out middle-of-the-road products designed to rake in enough money opening weekend. I don’t like the films made by committees as opposed to auteurs. Say what you want about George Lucas and the prequels; at least they had some kind of ambition, some sort of risk-taking of CGI boundaries, willing to bring in political themes unseen in previous films. They’re not good by any means, of course, but an ambitious failure is always more interesting than a solid yet forgettable blockbuster. Which film would you watch again, The Room or Captain America: Civil War?
I find it surprising that people on this thread are suddenly defending TFA when they have been bashing it only a few hours ago as “crap is crap.”
- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
Don’t worry I fixed it.
Failed, I have.
- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
I wasn’t exactly wild about Rouge One. No internet reviewer gave me that opinion.
The Studios have more creative control than in any point in Hollywood’s history.
Totally untrue. See 30s, 40s.
Abrams was chosen because he was the ideal studio director: one that could be molded by the producers to churn out middle-of-the-road products designed to rake in enough money opening weekend.
This is a ridiculous notion. TFA would have made millions opening weekend regardless of director. LFL hired him specifically because he would bring something to the table, hence his impact on the story/script. This isn’t Marvel, LFL wants strong creative voices, hence why they aren’t hiring randos off the street like Scott Derrickson and Peyton Reed. If they wanted someone who they could control, they wouldn’t hire someone who has their own production company. They’d hire someone new and cheap who can’t say no to anything (which we have seen done on a SW film before, and not in this century).
I don’t like the films made by committees as opposed to auteurs. Say what you want about George Lucas and the prequels; at least they had some kind of ambition, some sort of risk-taking of CGI boundaries, willing to bring in political themes unseen in previous films. They’re not good by any means, of course, but an ambitious failure is always more interesting than a solid yet forgettable blockbuster.
Now I know you’re basing your opinion off others because this is the same tired bullshit I hear ad nauseam from internet d-bags. TFA was written by three people: JJ Abrams, Lawrence Kasdan, and Michael Ardnt. If by committee you mean the story group, well sure they were involved, but that’s mainly from a broader universe building/continuity perspective. If you’re talking about some sort of nameless committee of Disney execs looking at made up focus group opinions - that’s just utter nonsense.
And then to bring George fucking Lucas into it… no ambition there. Just a dude “writing” scenes last minute and telling his concept artists, modelers, costumers, etc. to create hundreds of different potential elements (based on half-baked, underdeveloped notes) that he’d just literally stamp for approval. They were mostly CGI because he was too fucking lazy to leave the studio and because he wanted to be able to basically continue to write and shoot the movies while he was editing them and realizing what important scenes they were missing. The political themes, I mean I don’t even know what to say. I mean good for him I guess to try it? But is it ballsy to put the most boring and poorly handled political subplots in your big budget movies? In a way maybe, but again, mostly just lazy in that he just threw shit against a wall and didn’t try to concoct any sort of interesting story out of them. It’s insane to me that people are saying TFA failed by not having enough politics. The OT didn’t have any politics. A film is not made good by politics. A film is made good by telling a good story. Since the PT didn’t do that, what I say when you said at least it had political themes is who gives a shit.
Which film would you watch again, The Room or Captain America: Civil War?
Captain America. Next question.
I find it surprising that people on this thread are suddenly defending TFA when they have been bashing it only a few hours ago as “crap is crap.”
I don’t think anyone here defending it ever called it crap. Most people are pretty constant in their opinions. Except you, I guess, who literally hours ago said you “really liked TFA.”
- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
I wasn’t exactly wild about Rouge One. No internet reviewer gave me that opinion.
The Studios have more creative control than in any point in Hollywood’s history.
Totally untrue. See 30s, 40s.
The 1930s-1940s gave us Orson Welles, Howard Hawks, John Ford, and John Huston, to name a few. Where are today’s auteurs that aren’t either puppets of corporate America or holdovers from 20 years ago?
Abrams was chosen because he was the ideal studio director: one that could be molded by the producers to churn out middle-of-the-road products designed to rake in enough money opening weekend.
This is a ridiculous notion. TFA would have made millions opening weekend regardless of director. LFL hired him specifically because he would bring something to the table, hence his impact on the story/script. This isn’t Marvel, LFL wants strong creative voices, hence why they aren’t hiring randos off the street like Scott Derrickson and Peyton Reed. If they wanted someone who they could control, they wouldn’t hire someone who has their own production company. They’d hire someone new and cheap who can’t say no to anything (which we have seen done on a SW film before, and not in this century).
TPM made millions regardless of quality. And Abrams is a Spielberg clone who basically combined ANH and ESB into one film. Otherwise you got me there.
I don’t like the films made by committees as opposed to auteurs. Say what you want about George Lucas and the prequels; at least they had some kind of ambition, some sort of risk-taking of CGI boundaries, willing to bring in political themes unseen in previous films. They’re not good by any means, of course, but an ambitious failure is always more interesting than a solid yet forgettable blockbuster.
Now I know you’re basing your opinion off others because this is the same tired bullshit I hear ad nauseam from internet d-bags. TFA was written by three people: JJ Abrams, Lawrence Kasdan, and Michael Ardnt. If by committee you mean the story group, well sure they were involved, but that’s mainly from a broader universe building/continuity perspective. If you’re talking about some sort of nameless committee of Disney execs looking at made up focus group opinions - that’s just utter nonsense.
And then to bring George fucking Lucas into it… no ambition there. Just a dude “writing” scenes last minute and telling his concept artists, modelers, costumers, etc. to create hundreds of different potential elements (based on half-baked, underdeveloped notes) that he’d just literally stamp for approval. They were mostly CGI because he was too fucking lazy to leave the studio and because he wanted to be able to basically continue to write and shoot the movies while he was editing them and realizing what important scenes they were missing. The political themes, I mean I don’t even know what to say. I mean good for him I guess to try it? But is it ballsy to put the most boring and poorly handled political subplots in your big budget movies? In a way maybe, but again, mostly just lazy in that he just threw shit against a wall and didn’t try to concoct any sort of interesting story out of them. It’s insane to me that people are saying TFA failed by not having enough politics. The OT didn’t have any politics. A film is not made good by politics. A film is made good by telling a good story. Since the PT didn’t do that, what I say when you said at least it had political themes is who gives a shit.
All I said was that the prequels were failed experiments. Lucas thought he could make a movie entirely with computers because he didn’t want to go through another nightmare like the production of ANH. It’s still lazy, I agree, but he was under the delusion that he could cut corners and make a great film (he could not), and with a 22 year gap since being in the director’s chair. Obviously he lost whatever talent he might of had in the seventies.
Which film would you watch again, The Room or Captain America: Civil War?
Captain America. Next question.
Which film is going to remembered ten years down the road? People will still be making fun of The Room and quoting the worst lines while Civil War fades into obscurity.
I find it surprising that people on this thread are suddenly defending TFA when they have been bashing it only a few hours ago as “crap is crap.”
I don’t think anyone here defending it ever called it crap. Most people are pretty constant in their opinions. Except you, I guess, who literally hours ago said you “really liked TFA.”
I said I might reconsider my opinion on TFA. I didn’t actually say that my mind was completely changed in the span of a few hours. I’ll probably hold the same opinion on TFA like I did when I saw it a year ago.
- Time
- Post link
Pretty sure CGI’ing two actors performances in Rogue One was risky CGI. Especially considering how polarizing it has been so far.
- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
I wasn’t exactly wild about Rouge One. No internet reviewer gave me that opinion.
The Studios have more creative control than in any point in Hollywood’s history.
Totally untrue. See 30s, 40s.
The 1930s-1940s gave us Orson Welles, Howard Hawks, John Ford, and John Huston, to name a few. Where are today’s auteurs that aren’t either puppets of corporate America or holdovers from 20 years ago?
Johnson, Nolan, DuVernay, Chazelle, Villeneuve, Jenkins, Lonergan, Nichols, Coogler, Garland, McKay, Fukunaga, Refn, Vallee, Miller, McQueen, Chandor, Aronofsky, Glazer, etc.
I don’t like the films made by committees as opposed to auteurs. Say what you want about George Lucas and the prequels; at least they had some kind of ambition, some sort of risk-taking of CGI boundaries, willing to bring in political themes unseen in previous films. They’re not good by any means, of course, but an ambitious failure is always more interesting than a solid yet forgettable blockbuster.
Now I know you’re basing your opinion off others because this is the same tired bullshit I hear ad nauseam from internet d-bags. TFA was written by three people: JJ Abrams, Lawrence Kasdan, and Michael Ardnt. If by committee you mean the story group, well sure they were involved, but that’s mainly from a broader universe building/continuity perspective. If you’re talking about some sort of nameless committee of Disney execs looking at made up focus group opinions - that’s just utter nonsense.
And then to bring George fucking Lucas into it… no ambition there. Just a dude “writing” scenes last minute and telling his concept artists, modelers, costumers, etc. to create hundreds of different potential elements (based on half-baked, underdeveloped notes) that he’d just literally stamp for approval. They were mostly CGI because he was too fucking lazy to leave the studio and because he wanted to be able to basically continue to write and shoot the movies while he was editing them and realizing what important scenes they were missing. The political themes, I mean I don’t even know what to say. I mean good for him I guess to try it? But is it ballsy to put the most boring and poorly handled political subplots in your big budget movies? In a way maybe, but again, mostly just lazy in that he just threw shit against a wall and didn’t try to concoct any sort of interesting story out of them. It’s insane to me that people are saying TFA failed by not having enough politics. The OT didn’t have any politics. A film is not made good by politics. A film is made good by telling a good story. Since the PT didn’t do that, what I say when you said at least it had political themes is who gives a shit.
All I said was that the prequels were failed experiments. Lucas thought he could make a movie entirely with computers because he didn’t want to go through another nightmare like the production of ANH. It’s still lazy, I agree, but he was under the delusion that he could cut corners and make a great film (he could not), and with a 22 year gap since being in the director’s chair. Obviously he lost whatever talent he might of had in the seventies.
Experimenting doesn’t mean being ambitious and isn’t even all that much to commend, in this case. He might have fancied himself a trailblazer but he was really just pretending to himself that CGI was ready to be around 40-100% of every frame in a live action movie when it was obvious the technology wasn’t there yet.
And I’d say, given the choice between making random computer generated bullshit that no one has seen before yet sucks completely and a story that actually works really well, regardless of a somewhat reused plot, I’d pick the story that works well overtime and I think having a movie that’s good and works is much more laudable than a movie that features the most effects shots in history at that time or has ham-fisted GW Bush references yet fails in almost every way as a compelling story.
Which film would you watch again, The Room or Captain America: Civil War?
Captain America. Next question.
Which film is going to remembered ten years down the road? People will still be making fun of The Room and quoting the worst lines while Civil War fades into obscurity.
Well certain movies will always have their cult followings but personally I’m not much of a bad film watcher. I’d prefer something that’s good, even if it’s not necessarily something that’s great. Still better than bad in my eyes.
- Time
- Post link
http://www.agonybooth.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-2015-a-failed-review-51100
Makes me reconsider my opinions on TFA. JJ Abrams is the one director who might be destroying the art of cinema more than anyone else, even more than Michael Bay or Zack Snyder. I haven’t seen TFA in over a year, and only once, and now I’m uncertain if it would even hold up a second time. What I’m afraid of now is that Disney is going to treat this franchise far worse than George Lucas ever could. We live in the era of assembly-line cinematic universes where everything is middle of the road, no stakes needed, getting by just enough on nostalgia alone for commercial exploitation. Has there been any original movie in the last 10-15 years that had an impact in the public consciousness? No, there aren’t: they’re based on comic books, Harry Potter, YA trilogies, or some preexisting IP. This is the absolute worst decade in the history of film simply because there are no popular films that are not derivative in some form or another. The OT is being diluted piece by piece; it was bad enough in the 80s but each subsequent decade has exponentially built upon the other. By 2020 there will be twice as many films in the SW franchise than there were a decade ago. And I’m betting that there is not going to be even one that can measure up to ANH or ESB. It’s not two out of seven anymore: soon it will be two out of two hundred.
Excellent post general and I’ve been thinking this ever since Disney bought Lucasfilm in 2012. I recanted my opinion for awhile between 2014 and 2015 after The Force Awakens trailer got me pretty hyped, and I bought into the idea of passing off Star Wars to a new generation of fans. Unfortunately everything you just described is what I disappointingly saw when I viewed The Force Awakens, and again to a lesser though more mundane extent last night when I watched Rogue One.
There will undoubtedly be a saturation of the market and eventually a precipitous decline in ALL things Star Wars, including the OT. The onus is on those of us who realize how priceless the original films are, to preserve them for posterity, keeping in mind what has happened in the history of motion pictures and literary works throughout the ages. The exploitative, derivative works will be discarded over time and no longer extant, but perhaps a hundred years from now when we are all dead and gone, people will once again appreciate the OOT as the timeless classics that they truly are.
- Time
- Post link
@ generalfrevious
I may add that during the previous 15 years we’ve got new possibilities: Avatar, which was successful enough to get (I hope) worthy sequels; John Carter, a missed opportunity (movie is mediocre but a sequel could have been awesome); Jupiter Ascending, a failure but a new concept (like a feminist-oriented Matrix); Tomorrowland, great but didn’t make any money; Speed Racer, which is basically one of the best movies of the past decade and an invitation to a new kind of cinema (sadly we’ll never get to see the sequels); etc.
- Time
- Post link
Speed Racer, which is basically one of the best movies of the past decade and an invitation to a new kind of cinema (sadly we’ll never get to see the sequels); etc.
I actually liked Speed Racer…and yet this is an insane post. No wonder you gave RO a 0/10.
- Time
- Post link
…Jupiter Ascending, a failure but a new concept (like a squirrel-faced Matrix)
I fixed this because the way it was typed seemed out of character for you.
.
- Time
- Post link
…Jupiter Ascending, a failure but a new concept (like a squirrel-faced Matrix)
I fixed this because the way it was typed seemed out of character for you.
Thanks man ! But I’m afraid I don’t agree since Kunis is a better actress and she does not remind me a squirrel like Riley does… (I’m still trying to find a nickname for Felicity Jones but she has so little emotion during the entire R1… oh… well, emotionless Jones seems appropriate).
- Time
- Post link
Speed Racer, which is basically one of the best movies of the past decade and an invitation to a new kind of cinema (sadly we’ll never get to see the sequels); etc.
I actually liked Speed Racer…and yet this is an insane post. No wonder you gave RO a 0/10.
I enjoyed the movie too. What a dilemma we’re in here! 😉
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
I wasn’t exactly wild about Rouge One. No internet reviewer gave me that opinion.
The Studios have more creative control than in any point in Hollywood’s history. Abrams was chosen because he was the ideal studio director: one that could be molded by the producers to churn out middle-of-the-road products designed to rake in enough money opening weekend. I don’t like the films made by committees as opposed to auteurs. Say what you want about George Lucas and the prequels; at least they had some kind of ambition, some sort of risk-taking of CGI boundaries, willing to bring in political themes unseen in previous films. They’re not good by any means, of course, but an ambitious failure is always more interesting than a solid yet forgettable blockbuster. Which film would you watch again, The Room or Captain America: Civil War?
I find it surprising that people on this thread are suddenly defending TFA when they have been bashing it only a few hours ago as “crap is crap.”
So, Tommy Wiseau should write, direct, and star in a SW movie?
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
I wasn’t exactly wild about Rouge One. No internet reviewer gave me that opinion.
The Studios have more creative control than in any point in Hollywood’s history. Abrams was chosen because he was the ideal studio director: one that could be molded by the producers to churn out middle-of-the-road products designed to rake in enough money opening weekend. I don’t like the films made by committees as opposed to auteurs. Say what you want about George Lucas and the prequels; at least they had some kind of ambition, some sort of risk-taking of CGI boundaries, willing to bring in political themes unseen in previous films. They’re not good by any means, of course, but an ambitious failure is always more interesting than a solid yet forgettable blockbuster. Which film would you watch again, The Room or Captain America: Civil War?
I find it surprising that people on this thread are suddenly defending TFA when they have been bashing it only a few hours ago as “crap is crap.”
So, Tommy Wiseau should write, direct, and star in a SW movie?
No, what I’m really saying is that an infamously bad movie is often more memorable than an average one.
- Time
- Post link
frevious please stop basing your opinions on other people’s.
God I can’t watch that. “Epidemic”? That would imply it’s a bad thing that so many movies are passable. It’d be worse if they weren’t.
I wasn’t exactly wild about Rouge One. No internet reviewer gave me that opinion.
The Studios have more creative control than in any point in Hollywood’s history. Abrams was chosen because he was the ideal studio director: one that could be molded by the producers to churn out middle-of-the-road products designed to rake in enough money opening weekend. I don’t like the films made by committees as opposed to auteurs. Say what you want about George Lucas and the prequels; at least they had some kind of ambition, some sort of risk-taking of CGI boundaries, willing to bring in political themes unseen in previous films. They’re not good by any means, of course, but an ambitious failure is always more interesting than a solid yet forgettable blockbuster. Which film would you watch again, The Room or Captain America: Civil War?
I find it surprising that people on this thread are suddenly defending TFA when they have been bashing it only a few hours ago as “crap is crap.”
So, Tommy Wiseau should write, direct, and star in a SW movie?
I’d watch it.
Not enough people read the EU.
- Time
- Post link
As would I – especially if there’s a scene with him in a metal bikini.
- Time
- Post link
I actually tried to watch Speed Racer a few weeks ago and had to shut it off within the first ten minutes. I just wanted to gouge my eyes out. It looked exactly like a cartoon, and not in a good way at all.
- Time
- Post link
The preview of that Guardians of the Galaxy movie that I saw during the opening trailers at Rogue One made me feel the same way. Literally one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen in my life.
- Time
- Post link
The preview of that Guardians of the Galaxy movie that I saw during the opening trailers at Rogue One made me feel the same way. Literally one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen in my life.
Well shit man stay far away from Speed Racer then.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I actually tried to watch Speed Racer a few weeks ago and had to shut it off within the first ten minutes. I just wanted to gouge my eyes out. It looked exactly like a cartoon, and not in a good way at all.
It is based on a 1960’s Japanese cartoon after all. Which means there’s something anime based Frink actually likes! I think I may faint. 😉
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
The preview of that Guardians of the Galaxy movie that I saw during the opening trailers at Rogue One made me feel the same way. Literally one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen in my life.
Well, you didn’t see the first one, nor read the source material, so why would it mean anything to you?
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
I surprisingly enjoyed Speed Racer. The ending is genuinely sad haha.