DominicCobb

Collipso said:

But the kids are acting Luke vs FO in Crait with the doll. It has a lot more impact if it’s after the confrontation.

In fact the scene is there to establish how he’s a true legend after doing that.

Exactly, that’s the whole point of that scene and kinda the main pay off of Luke on Crait.

I didn’t completely catch it on my first viewing but it’s definitely there.

Used to do alphabetical by title (with series grouped together). When I started getting blu-rays they were separate and organized pretty loosely, mostly by director.

I just moved so most of my movies are either in storage and/or at my parents, so I only have about two shelves worth right now. I’ve just been doing straight up chronological, blu-rays and DVDs together. I kinda like it.

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).

The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?

The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.

The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.

Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.

It’s definitely fair to dislike the direction they’ve taken. I don’t agree with all aspects of it myself. But in general I definitely think this was not only the right way to go, but the necessary way to go.

I don’t know. I miss the days when there were just three movies, and 9 out of 10 people agreed, they were good. I would prefer Disney put their effort into creating original stories with original characters. Give me another Star Wars like experience, not another Star Wars experience. Been there, done that.

If nothing else, you have to admit that when all is said and done, this 9 episode Skywalker series, whatever it ends up looking like, has at least re-contextualized the saga in a way that’s easier to stomach than “The Tragedy of Darth Vader” that we got when the prequels were added to the mix.

I’m not sure he’ll admit that.

I’m hoping my framing that post as a statement rather than a question will convince him to agree, regardless of his actual thoughts on the matter.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).

The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?

The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.

The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.

Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.

It’s definitely fair to dislike the direction they’ve taken. I don’t agree with all aspects of it myself. But in general I definitely think this was not only the right way to go, but the necessary way to go.

I don’t know. I miss the days when there were just three movies, and 9 out of 10 people agreed, they were good. I would prefer Disney put their effort into creating original stories with original characters. Give me another Star Wars like experience, not another Star Wars experience. Been there, done that.

If nothing else, you have to admit that when all is said and done, this 9 episode Skywalker series, whatever it ends up looking like, has at least re-contextualized the saga in a way that’s easier to stomach than “The Tragedy of Darth Vader” that we got when the prequels were added to the mix.

Cobra Kai said:

DominicCobb said:

The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?

The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.

If the story must continue with all new characters, then Luke’s character should’ve just followed the natural progression that the OT set up and taken over the archetypal role as the wise mentor. That is exactly what they originally tried to do as Abrams and Michael Arndt have stated. According to Arndt though, they couldn’t figure out how to do this and not have Luke steal the show from the new “hero”:

“It just felt like every time Luke entered the movie, he just took it over. Suddenly you didn’t care about your main character anymore because, ‘Oh fuck, Luke Skywalker’s here. I want to see what he’s going to do’.” – Michael Arndt

I understand what he’s saying, but on a fundamental level I disagree with that. I don’t see any reason why Luke couldn’t have taken a “backseat” to Rey, during the course of the story. After all, they basically did the exact same thing with an equally popular character in Han Solo.

First, Luke can’t just be Obi-wan v2. Classic performance aside, Obi-wan in the OT was mainly a vehicle for exposition and an introduction for Luke to the way of the force. And that’s okay! And was necessary then. But we already know what the force is, we already know what the Jedi are and what happened in the OT and whatever. Plus, unlike the PT (which turned Obi-wan into a main character after the fact), it’s weird to have three movies with a main character (and not just any main character, basically the main character in modern cinema) and then for him to only be a tertiary character when he shows up again. Obi-wan didn’t need a story in the OT, but Luke needed one in the ST. And to give a character a compelling story, you need to strip away their perfection.

As for Arndt and Abrams thinking that Luke would steal the show, I pretty much agree, and I’d actually submit TLJ as exhibit #1. Even after a film and a half with Rey as our protagonist, once Luke shows up on Crait, it’s the Luke show. Which is awesome but I do think it robs Rey of the power of her climactic moment (lifting the rocks).

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).

The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?

The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.

The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.

Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.

It’s definitely fair to dislike the direction they’ve taken. I don’t agree with all aspects of it myself. But in general I definitely think this was not only the right way to go, but the necessary way to go.

yhwx said:

Yes, this whole “they’re ruining the OT” argument makes absolutely no sense. Rian Johnson isn’t scribbling a marker all over the negatives of Star Wars, folks.

Yeah, that was George Lucas who did that, lest we forget what site we’re on.

jarbear said:

DominicCobb said:

I actually kinda want to slow the cave footage down, ESB style.

Lol, that would be a big throwback to ESB.

It may be a bit triply for how long the scene is!

Yeah I figure these are the reasons it wasn’t done like that.

Still, I’d like to try it and see how I feel about it.

There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).

The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?

The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.

The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.

I actually kinda want to slow the cave footage down, ESB style.

SilverWook said:

The original fairy tales are also a lot darker than the sanitized versions most people are familiar with today.

Most myths too of course, complete happy endings in those were a little elusive.

Not to mention, of course, Star Wars has never been just a fairy tale. That’s just one aspect of it. And it was never supposed to be just another myth. It was supposed to be the creation of a new modern myth. Deconstruction has been built into the franchise since the beginning.

TV’s Frink said:

To actually answer the question from earlier, yes my issue with it was how it looked. Super fake, looked exactly like the PT.

You need to watch the PT again.

Wait, maybe best not.

Seriously though, CG has improved a lot in the past fifteen years. And most of the environments they were riding through were shot practically anyway.

yhwx said:

What was the point of the chase anyway? Seems like it would be the first thing to be cut out in editing.

Mostly the moment when Finn says it was worth it to wreck the town but then Rose lets the last horse go and says “now it’s worth it.”

But also to add some excitement to that story line? Why do chases ever happen in movies?

dahmage said:

THIS ISN’T THE GEOMETRY THREAD

Co-sign

TV’s Frink said:

That’s a crime waiting to happen.

Yep, doubt that bullet’s 21 years old.

lovelikewinter said:

I caught it in IMAX and there are some shots that are absolutely gorgeous to me like Paige’s death on the bomber and seeing Phasma’s eye out of the cracked helmet.

I think IMAX will be my next (4th) go round.

I don’t know if I ever posted this, but number 3 for me was in Dolby Atmos, which I highly recommend.

Zak fett said:

dahmage said:

Zak fett said:

Collipso said:

Ok, I’ll start with the original. Thanks guys.

The only reason I even considered R1 is because I think that R1 nowadays is an easier movie to watch than the original, especially in this case with a girl as protagonist (since I’d be showing it to my girlfriend; and more girls in general in the movie). However, I have noted in previous viewings that it doesn’t have “introductory qualities” like the original has, so it doesn’t function as well as the introduction to the SW saga to someone new. Plus it’s so different from all the others that the first time viewer might find some recurring things in the rest of the saga odd.

Again, thanks guys.

Would YOU watch R1 before ANH ?

I would in a R1 and ANH only double feature. But if doing a trilogy viewing, (or especially if introducing someone to the films), i would use release order.

I agree and the one of the problems of of going PT R1 OT is that in ROtS you find out luke and Leia are twins which kind of partly ruins OT.

Yeah that’s definitely the biggest reveal that the PT spoils…

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Just because a group has been dicking around for 1,000 generations doesn’t mean their view is the be all end all.

Yes, but that entire presumption is arrogance IMO. We’re speaking about a group who have maintained peace and justice for a 1,000 generations. If that’s dicking around, I think I have to come out of the closet.

"The Force is what gives the Jedi its power."
not “The Force is the Jedi’s power.”

As stated by one of those dicks.

Always missing the nuance. Just because the Jedi are good doesn’t mean the Jedi are always right. Just because the Jedi aren’t always right doesn’t mean the Jedi are always wrong.

When Luke says that saying the light belongs to the Jedi is vanity, he’s basically right, but he’s definitely up his own ass about it, butting in with his ideology when Rey is just trying to feel the force. It is a little arrogant of him, and it’s supposed to feel that way.

We shouldn’t blindly accept that the Jedi can do no wrong just because they’ve been around for 1,000 generations (especially when the PT shows they almost caused their own extinction). But just because we should have a critical eye with the Jedi doesn’t mean we should dismiss them outright, and the movie doesn’t do that.

“I will not be the last Jedi.” Don’t forget.

The force does not belong to the Jedi. It never has. The light does not belong to the Jedi, is never has and it never should. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe that the Jedi won’t fight for the light as long as they can.

I missed the nuance, because there was none in your OP, my friend. “1,000 generations of dicking around” is not a nuanced statement. Nuanced posts invite nuanced answers. Posts filled with hyperboles don’t.

Dicking around does not mean being dicks. At least I don’t use it that way. (to me it’s basically a synonym for “hanging,” surely I’m not the only one who uses it that way?) It wasn’t meant to be a hyperbolic statement.

Just to prove I’m not crazy…
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dicking around&defid=323310

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Just because a group has been dicking around for 1,000 generations doesn’t mean their view is the be all end all.

Yes, but that entire presumption is arrogance IMO. We’re speaking about a group who have maintained peace and justice for a 1,000 generations. If that’s dicking around, I think I have to come out of the closet.

"The Force is what gives the Jedi its power."
not “The Force is the Jedi’s power.”

As stated by one of those dicks.

Always missing the nuance. Just because the Jedi are good doesn’t mean the Jedi are always right. Just because the Jedi aren’t always right doesn’t mean the Jedi are always wrong.

When Luke says that saying the light belongs to the Jedi is vanity, he’s basically right, but he’s definitely up his own ass about it, butting in with his ideology when Rey is just trying to feel the force. It is a little arrogant of him, and it’s supposed to feel that way.

We shouldn’t blindly accept that the Jedi can do no wrong just because they’ve been around for 1,000 generations (especially when the PT shows they almost caused their own extinction). But just because we should have a critical eye with the Jedi doesn’t mean we should dismiss them outright, and the movie doesn’t do that.

“I will not be the last Jedi.” Don’t forget.

The force does not belong to the Jedi. It never has. The light does not belong to the Jedi, is never has and it never should. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe that the Jedi won’t fight for the light as long as they can.

I missed the nuance, because there was none in your OP, my friend. “1,000 generations of dicking around” is not a nuanced statement. Nuanced posts invite nuanced answers. Posts filled with hyperboles don’t.

Dicking around does not mean being dicks. At least I don’t use it that way. (to me it’s basically a synonym for “hanging,” surely I’m not the only one who uses it that way?) It wasn’t meant to be a hyperbolic statement.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Just because a group has been dicking around for 1,000 generations doesn’t mean their view is the be all end all.

Yes, but that entire presumption is arrogance IMO. We’re speaking about a group who have maintained peace and justice for a 1,000 generations. If that’s dicking around, I think I have to come out of the closet.

"The Force is what gives the Jedi its power."
not “The Force is the Jedi’s power.”

As stated by one of those dicks.

Always missing the nuance. Just because the Jedi are good doesn’t mean the Jedi are always right. Just because the Jedi aren’t always right doesn’t mean the Jedi are always wrong.

When Luke says that saying the light belongs to the Jedi is vanity, he’s basically right, but he’s definitely up his own ass about it, butting in with his ideology when Rey is just trying to feel the force. It is a little arrogant of him, and it’s supposed to feel that way.

We shouldn’t blindly accept that the Jedi can do no wrong just because they’ve been around for 1,000 generations (especially when the PT shows they almost caused their own extinction). But just because we should have a critical eye with the Jedi doesn’t mean we should dismiss them outright, and the movie doesn’t do that.

“I will not be the last Jedi.” Don’t forget.

The force does not belong to the Jedi. It never has. The light does not belong to the Jedi, is never has and it never should. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe that the Jedi won’t fight for the light as long as they can.

Just because a group has been dicking around for 1,000 generations doesn’t mean their view is the be all end all.

"The Force is what gives the Jedi its power."
not “The Force is the Jedi’s power.”

Well I do think the Jedi in the PT have too rigid a definition of the Force. Whether George did that on purpose, doesn’t matter, as I’m glad to see the ST expand it into so much more than just midichlorian counts.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

The Force shouldn’t have a rigid definition.

Then let’s not treat RJ’s definition as the second coming. By attempting to strip the original definition of it’s iconic status, RJ’s definition cannot be even that anymore. It’s just another opinion.

I’m not. I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. The Force shouldn’t have a rigid definition.

yhwx said:

The argument of “Twitter is responsible for letting Trump start nuclear war!” seems unconvincing to me. If Twitter has never existed, Trump would have other means to star nuclear war.

But it’s certainly not helping. Trump having immediate access to air his thoughts publicly is not a good thing.

And either way, there is a clear case to be made for his banning.

The Force shouldn’t have a rigid definition.