DominicCobb

Sure.

Dek Rollins said:

^The movie itself is bad anyway.

Not true at all.

You can point out more than one thing wrong at a time.

The percentage of whit people in the US and white people shot by cops still doesn’t match though, even if they’re both a majority.

moviefreakedmind said:

I complain about how shitty dating is, and then everyone bombards me with what dating is supposed to be. I don’t get it. I’m not complaining about what dating is supposed to be in an ideal world, I’m complaining about what it is. I can’t comprehend why people don’t get what I’m saying.

You’re saying that dating is always one way, when that’s not the case. What you’re describing is bad dating. It’s not all bad.

ray_afraid said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to believe that maybe if they drastically retooled a movie after it was almost finished that maybe that movie wasn’t turning out to be very good. Occam’s Razor and all that.

It’s not that I find it hard to believe, I just wish they’d be more transparent about how things went down. With there seeming to be a gag order on the subject, I don’t fully trust anything that makes it past the guard so to speak.

I wish that they were more open about the process too, but it seems like LFL (or maybe Disney) is trying to make it seem like these are trouble-less productions.

What makes Gilroy seem credible is the fact that it sounds like he’s telling tales out of school (he holds back only when it comes to directly stating things it sounds like legally can’t be said), and what he’s saying doesn’t really reflect well on the studio.

I do really like the idea of continuity edits (it’s something I myself have been mulling over, in regards to the OT specifically), but even that can get complicated. Already I’m seeing things that are subjective. Like, the fact that Obi-wan saying Anakin was a good friend doesn’t gel with the prequels, and while I’m sure most would agree on that, it’d be hard to come to a consensus on how to actually fix that.

Smaller and more concrete solutions (like “old friend” instead of “little friend,” which coincidentally is something I’ve had in mind for awhile) seems a bit more feasible. Not trying to discourage or anything of course, just thinking out loud, don’t mind me.

Collipso said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think it’s crazy that some people want to put their best foot first and not make a bad impression. I don’t know if I’d say that’s being dishonest or lying. Just because you’re not necessarily airing all your bad qualities right away doesn’t mean you’re not being yourself. It’s natural to open up more the more you get to know someone. Again, I wouldn’t call that dishonesty.

If you’re months deep in a relationship and you still don’t feel comfortable being open and yourself, that’s not a relationship you should be in, simple as that.

Dom, seeing as we are past 4 months, I have something I’ve been meaning to tell you…

did you guys date at all or was it an arranged marriage? arranged marriage always comes to mind immediately whenever someone says they’re in a relationship nowadays, because of, you know, how common it is. and how progressive it is. and, of course, how that embodies freedom etc etc etc etc fml

Not quite arranged. Randomly assigned by a Facebook algorithm.

dahmage said:

Collipso said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think it’s crazy that some people want to put their best foot first and not make a bad impression. I don’t know if I’d say that’s being dishonest or lying. Just because you’re not necessarily airing all your bad qualities right away doesn’t mean you’re not being yourself. It’s natural to open up more the more you get to know someone. Again, I wouldn’t call that dishonesty.

If you’re months deep in a relationship and you still don’t feel comfortable being open and yourself, that’s not a relationship you should be in, simple as that.

Dom, seeing as we are past 4 months, I have something I’ve been meaning to tell you…

did you guys date at all or was it an arranged marriage? arranged marriage always comes to mind immediately whenever someone says they’re in a relationship nowadays, because of, you know, how common it is. and how progressive it is. and, of course, how that embodies freedom etc etc etc etc fml

It was arranged by Frink and Frank.

As I said.

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

I don’t think it’s crazy that some people want to put their best foot first and not make a bad impression. I don’t know if I’d say that’s being dishonest or lying. Just because you’re not necessarily airing all your bad qualities right away doesn’t mean you’re not being yourself. It’s natural to open up more the more you get to know someone. Again, I wouldn’t call that dishonesty.

If you’re months deep in a relationship and you still don’t feel comfortable being open and yourself, that’s not a relationship you should be in, simple as that.

Dom, seeing as we are past 4 months, I have something I’ve been meaning to tell you…

First Frink, now you…

I don’t think it’s crazy that some people want to put their best foot first and not make a bad impression. I don’t know if I’d say that’s being dishonest or lying. Just because you’re not necessarily airing all your bad qualities right away doesn’t mean you’re not being yourself. It’s natural to open up more the more you get to know someone. Again, I wouldn’t call that dishonesty.

If you’re months deep in a relationship and you still don’t feel comfortable being open and yourself, that’s not a relationship you should be in, simple as that.

moviefreakedmind said:

I didn’t watch the second two Hobbit movies. I was extremely opposed to them making a trilogy out of it.

I still don’t think it was inherently a bad idea, and I personally think the first two prove that you can make real movies out of only a portion of the story. The third really suffers from the split, though, it doesn’t do much to make itself feel like an actual story unto itself, rather than just an extended climax.

All of this could’ve been solved with more pre-pro time (and not, say, adding a movie after principal photography was over).

suspiciouscoffee said:

Yeah, but in Black Panther, the morally/politically correct person is the villain, so there’s that.

EDIT: Maybe not “politically correct” as the term is popularly viewed, and maybe not entirely morally correct since he kills some people, but still, Killmonger was right.

That’s why Black Panther is great. T’Challa’s worldview is challenged and he ultimately takes Kilmonger’s message to heart… so yeah he was right, but Kilmonger was also a murderer trying to commit mass murder, so I don’t think one can really say he was “maybe” morally wrong…

moviefreakedmind said:

I always get a little annoyed when people imply that political angles of books are inherently bad. Unless the politics of a work of art are totally reprehensible I enjoy it. A lot of people complained about Black Panther being political, but isn’t that a good thing that they had a deeper story as opposed to the usual Marvel formula?

I think the politics they’re talking about are more like the boring Senate procedure stuff in TPM. Could be wrong though.

moviefreakedmind said:

ray_afraid said:

moviefreakedmind said:
Just for the record, I wasn’t being sarcastic with my comment on it being about sacrifice, I genuinely didn’t get any of that from the movie. I thought it’s message was about “learning to work together” and “doing the right thing” or something like that.

Yep. It’s funny that someone who doesn’t even like the film seems to understand it better than some of the people who worked on it. 😉

In his defense, saying it’s about “sacrifice” is a lot more exciting-sounding than saying it’s about “doing the right thing.” As for the rough cut and Edwards’ direction, I just don’t feel judging a product that I haven’t seen and still know nothing about. Like you said, Edwards is a good director (which is what I credit the visual beauty of Rogue One to) so I don’t like the idea of taking some guy’s word that his movie was so bad.

Again, he’s not “some guy,” he’s a director himself (and one I’d probably personally consider more talented than Edwards). Even good directors can make bad movies, and being a good visual director doesn’t not necessarily mean being a good story director. And again, if the movie was bad, it wasn’t entirely Edwards fault. And again, Edwards continued working on the film during the reshoots.

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to believe that maybe if they drastically retooled a movie after it was almost finished that maybe that movie wasn’t turning out to be very good. Occam’s Razor and all that.

The Hobbits are remarkably watchable considering the insanely rushed circumstances. I don’t think any of them are bad, though I will say I didn’t like the third very much.

This whole thread is a lot to go through and I’ve only really skimmed the posts so far, so maybe what I say has already been touched upon. I personally think a collaborative edit is a great idea, though one that’s probably unrealistic. Having spent a fair amount of time here, it’s clear that it’ll never really be possible to come to a consensus in regards to fan editing these movies.

How Hal’s TFA v2 came together is a good example of collaboration, though I think that’s in a very specific context, i.e. working together to make one (and only one) specific change work, with the edit being available as a base for people to make other changes they want to make. So I personally think the lesson is the collaboration can work, in regards to specific edit ideas.

Essentially what I mean, is there are certain edit ideas like “let’s move the destruction of the Republic to the third act of TFA” that can be done better collaboration, though I don’t think specific edits of whole films can. Basically, I do think it’d be really cool to have a thread that serves as sort of resource for specific idea conception and execution. So instead of collaborating to make whole edits, it’s collaborating to make small cuts that anyone can take and insert into their own whole edits.

ray_afraid said:

Thanks. Sounds good. I think I’ll pick it up and the new book that leads into the Han Solo movie. Or did I dream that one up?

No sir - http://www.starwars.com/news/daniel-jose-older-on-telling-a-han-and-lando-tale-in-last-shot

JEDIT: huh, comes out pretty soon too, April 17.

Is stormtrooper armor really armor? We never see it provide any sort of protection (besides from Phasma, who of course seems to have her own special armor). Luke even calls it a “uniform.”

ray_afraid said:

DominicCobb said:

Mocata said:

DominicCobb said:

Mocata said:

DominicCobb said:

Mocata said:

I’d rather see the version which had more Saw Gerrara as an actual character, and a finale where the group are actually together. It could still be a grey, lifeless marketing exercise but I’m not sure why he thinks this was an improvement.

I’m not sure why either of those would improve it. It sounds like the changes he made were narrowing the focus of the film and making the character motivations clearer. If anything, he didn’t go far enough.

Because those are character moments that are important for making me care about characters in a movie. As it stands I have no idea what Jyn and Saw were motivated by, beyond a few clichéd sound bites.

Well that’s under the assumption that those unused moments with Saw would provide his motivation, and that his motivation is necessary to the overall story. As is he’s ultimately not incredibly important to the narrative, so in my mind it makes sense to streamline his story if he’s out before the halfway point (and when there’s at least 8 other important characters that are still alive and relevant).

Personally Saw and Galen were the only interesting people and they were wasted. They just die and we’re supposed to… be sad? I don’t get it.

Reading Catalyst made me wish we got more of the Galen/Orson dynamic, or at least we saw Orson motivations fleshed out a bit more.

Is Catalyst good? I mean, besides giving some backstory to the characters of R1, is it a good story in your opinion?
I’ve kinda been wanting some new Star Wars in my life, but the few titles I picked up in the 90’s have left me pretty gun shy.

It depends what you’re looking for. I think it’s one of the best SW new books I’ve read. It kind of plays like a Galen/Orson biography, detailing their history together and going through about five years or so of them working on the station right up to the point where Galen finds out about its true purpose and runs off. I think its a good read, mainly to see the actual friendship that was there with those two (and more of the Tarkin/Orson conflict too). But if you’re looking for a wham bang fantasy action adventure, that’s not it. More of an interpersonal sci-fi drama.

jarbear said:

I would like to take a look. And please, for the love of goodness, no force bacteria please…

I’m going to try to take that out for this one and see how I feel about it.

Mocata said:

DominicCobb said:
though I certainly would’ve appreciated a better understanding of his impact on Jyn’s character.

Exactly.

I’m just saying this didn’t necessarily have to be done with additional Saw scenes, and that there’s no way for us to know if the additional Saw scenes they originally shot actually did this. It seems like Jyn was originally a very different character.

ray_afraid said:

DominicCobb said:

ray_afraid said:

DominicCobb said:

he just says it’s primarily about sacrifice

But it’s not.

It’s not because ultimately it’s not really primarily about anything

I’d say it’s a movie about learning to work together despite differences. I think that comes through clearly.

Like the theme of sacrifice, it’s clear they wanted this to be one of the things it’s about (though I don’t think they really succeeded in making the teamwork feel earned).

I personally don’t see how the sacrifice angle isn’t just as clear. Jyn’s mom sacrifices herself to buy Jyn some time, Galen in a way sacrifices himself to put a weakness in the weapon, Saw sacrifices himself to let the others get away in time, Cassian talks about how his life has been full of sacrifice, Jyn has to make a decision to join that life of sacrifice (rather than ignore the struggle), and of course the whole team and a whole lot of rebels make the ultimate sacrifice in the end in the hope that they can give the others the plans to destroy the Death Star.

Mocata said:

DominicCobb said:

Mocata said:

DominicCobb said:

Mocata said:

I’d rather see the version which had more Saw Gerrara as an actual character, and a finale where the group are actually together. It could still be a grey, lifeless marketing exercise but I’m not sure why he thinks this was an improvement.

I’m not sure why either of those would improve it. It sounds like the changes he made were narrowing the focus of the film and making the character motivations clearer. If anything, he didn’t go far enough.

Because those are character moments that are important for making me care about characters in a movie. As it stands I have no idea what Jyn and Saw were motivated by, beyond a few clichéd sound bites.

Well that’s under the assumption that those unused moments with Saw would provide his motivation, and that his motivation is necessary to the overall story. As is he’s ultimately not incredibly important to the narrative, so in my mind it makes sense to streamline his story if he’s out before the halfway point (and when there’s at least 8 other important characters that are still alive and relevant).

Personally Saw and Galen were the only interesting people and they were wasted. They just die and we’re supposed to… be sad? I don’t get it.

Reading Catalyst made me wish we got more of the Galen/Orson dynamic, or at least we saw Orson motivations fleshed out a bit more. I don’t think we really needed more Saw, I think his whole deal as radical rebel is easily understood. I wish there was more in regards to the ethics of the different methods of rebellion, but I don’t think we necessarily needed to see that through Saw, though I certainly would’ve appreciated a better understanding of his impact on Jyn’s character.

ray_afraid said:

DominicCobb said:

he just says it’s primarily about sacrifice

But it’s not.

It’s not about sacrifice because ultimately it’s not really primarily about anything, it’s almost about a lot of different things, one of them being sacrifice.

My full quote was

he just says it’s primarily about sacrifice, or that’s what he thought it should be about.

And when he says it’s about sacrifice, he’s saying “when I watched the rough cut, I saw what the film needed, which was to be about sacrifice.” If you don’t think the final product is about sacrifice, the proper critique isn’t that “he doesn’t understand the movie as much as some dude on the internet,” it’s that “he wanted the movie to be about sacrifice, but he failed to make it so.”

ray_afraid said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, I still don’t trust him. I have to know specifics about the original.

Same. Edwards other films are good and the production went smooth, so it’s not like he’s incompetent.

I don’t think Edwards’s competence is the problem. If I had to guess, they were rushed into production without a solid script, and when it came time to look at a cut it was clear what they were working with wasn’t working. Worth noting too that by all accounts Edwards was still involved during the reshoots, and Gilroy doesn’t say he wasn’t.

Edwards is fine, but he’s not someone I would say has amazing story sense. Monsters was okay. Godzilla had good moments but was ultimately not great. Interestingly enough, Godzilla had rewrites too, done by none other than Tony Gilroy.

ray_afraid said:

moviefreakedmind said:
Just for the record, I wasn’t being sarcastic with my comment on it being about sacrifice, I genuinely didn’t get any of that from the movie. I thought it’s message was about “learning to work together” and “doing the right thing” or something like that.

Yep. It’s funny that someone who doesn’t even like the film seems to understand it better than some of the people who worked on it. 😉

That doesn’t even make sense. Gilroy doesn’t say that the movie isn’t about those things, he just says it’s primarily about sacrifice, or that’s what he thought it should be about.

I’ll never understand how people come to the oddest conclusions.