The Force Awakens: Official Review Thread - ** SPOILERS ** — Page 47

ZkinandBonez said:

TavorX said:

I’ve mentioned it before, but in my opinion, most* of the time, when there’s an animalistic berserk animal in Star Wars, you don’t see the entirety of it. You just get just enough of the creature to sell the illusion it’s a real threatening monster. That’s why the SE monsters feel so out of place and cheap, like the Sarlacc beak addition. You see way too much of it! In TFA, you see those CGI monsters in all its glory in a hyperactive manner. Then it goes even further to let this CGI creation physically drag one of our main characters around in similar manner you’d see in Men in Black as a gag.

This guy wasn’t exactly subtle.

Lord Haseo said:

1. They weren’t necessary

Rancor wasn’t really that necessary either.

Now I’m not saying the Rathars scene was brilliant, I just don’t see how it’s so un-Star-Warsy. It serves pretty much the same purpose the Rancor, and even to some degree the space-slug, did. It adds some action to the movie. The Rathat’s scene however was simply meant to be a bit more funny, unlike the previous monsters. Just because we haven’t seen a “funny” monster in SW doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
(PS. the Wampas was originally meant to have a few funny moments in the deleted scenes from ESB where they attack Echo base, are locked in a room, and eventually released on the stormtroopers by C-3PO.)

The Rancor scene not only is pretty thrilling but it’s how Luke is captured which moves the plot forward.

imperialscum said:

3. Didn’t really mold in well with the rest of the movie.

Your opinion.

Haha haha.

I went to check out the IMAX 3D version today, waste of time. Just found it distracting and a strain on my eyes. This was in a state of the art 4K laser projection IMAX cinema with a huge screen yet everything felt small and dim with the glasses on. The first scene was ruined by orange fiery particles floating in my face.
Only on a few X-wing scenes did the 3D add anything at all

Mavimao said:

Count me in as one of those who liked the Rathar scene! It’s not worthless since it: shows us that Rey is not infallible, saves Han and Chewie, gets Han and Chewie back into the Falcon and kind of forces him to take them to the Resistance. It also re-establishes the fact that Han is a shoot first, talk later kinda guy when he punches the henchman and throws him into the mouth of the beast. (Better him than me!) Perhaps it was JJ’s middle finger to Greedo shooting first?

I understand that it may have seemed a little Men in Black-ish, but I liked that it did something different than other large creature encounters we’ve seen in the other films.

Those are my thoughts as well. That is one sequence in TFA that I enjoyed.

Accidental post, sorry. It would be nice if that didn’t happen.

The Rancor still looks great to this day. It will always look real. It’s the composited shots with Luke that have aged and will now always look fake for the rest of time. The original VFX in Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back will never age. Some of the background shots and the unfreezing in Jedi will always have that 1980s look to them. Another reason why ROTJ is the weakest of the OT.

As for the rathtars, Tavor I think it was(?) hit on some excellent points. A lot of the monsters in the OT didn’t call attention to themselves. They were only shown partially and the sense of mystery and not knowing what the rest of them looks like allows the human mind to fill in the blanks. The filmmaker only has to give an outline of a monster, and let you, the viewer, make the rest of it look real in your mind.

I’m not opposed to CGI on principle…sometimes its done very well. But it’s rare. Usually it has that fake look to it, either the look or the movement, and it takes me out of the movie every time. Rathtars were horrible for that reason.

Second, and definitely the bigger reason why they sucked, was because it had that Men In Black gag feel to them. Whoever said that, wow, that’s a great analogy. The tone of that scene is not Star Wars. It’s wrong. The scene was a ripoff of the trash compactor scene in Star Wars, but think of the differences. The trash compactor scene looked and felt real. Luke nearly drowned. He came up from the water soaking wet, his hair a mess, spitting water and grime from his mouth. Then they all almost get smashed to death in a very tense moment.

The rathtar scene on the other hand, felt like a joke. A monster eats all the bad guys, but only drags around the good guy. It drags him around all over the ship, where he should be banging his head into metal at high speeds over and over again, but he doesn’t get hurt, he’s fine. There’s nothing real about it. No grit. It’s just a gag that belongs in a different kind of movie. The way Finn gets freed is similarly stupid and not Star Wars. It all has the look and feel of being fake, something that was created with computers and animations, and posed no real threat to our heroes. The whole scene only existed because it was a beat on a “copy Star Wars” check list that the filmmakers were trying to replicate.

One of the very few things in TFA which looked and felt bad. Most of the film looked great. My problems and criticisms had more to do with the plot.

Alderaan said:

Second, and definitely the bigger reason why they sucked, was because it had that Men In Black gag feel to them. Whoever said that, wow, that’s a great analogy. The tone of that scene is not Star Wars. It’s wrong. The scene was a ripoff of the trash compactor scene in Star Wars

Don’t know where you get that from. These two scenes have nothing in common. Complain about TFA recycling ANH all you want, but this is a real stretch.

TV’s Frink said:
Don’t know where you get that from. These two scenes have nothing in common. Complain about TFA recycling ANH all you want, but this is a real stretch.

A monster snatches one of the heroes and drags him under water/throughout the ship, putting his life in danger.

No similarities obviously.

The Wampa scene is one of the first scenes in the film. It’s not a plot complication device in the middle of Act II and serves a different purpose storytelling-wise. It’s all about showing how Luke’s use of the Force has grown stronger in between Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.

Not that any of that is really important. It doesn’t matter if the rathtar scene rips off the trash compactor scene or not. What matters is the universe of these stories and the tone that is set. Luke gets dragged under water. He nearly drowns. He comes up all wet, spitting from his mouth. He had to physically hold his breath under water, so when he resurfaces, you can hear in his breathing and speech that he just physically did what he did on the screen. It can’t be replicated in front of green screen.

In the Wampa scene, Luke is bloodied. He nearly dies. Even when he frees himself, he goes out and mindlessly wanders into a blizzard until he collapses in the snow. These are all very real and atmosphere-centric.

The rathtar scene was just a gag however. It belonged in a different kind of movie. But it feels like I’m beating a dead horse preaching that argument to some of you who may never get it.

Your points are fair and valid, and I agree with them for the most part. It just doesn’t bother me as much as some other parts of the movie.

joefavs said:

Also, I saw TFA for the fourth time tonight and my enthusiasm just refuses to be deflated. I love this movie, and I’m thinking I might need to embark on a voluntary exile from these boards until passions aren’t running so high, because a lot of you are bumming me the hell out. I’ll be on an island with a bunch of neat stairs and huts and shit lookin’ at the water if anyone needs me.

Same.