logo Sign In

DominicCobb

User Group
Members
Join date
16-Aug-2011
Last activity
20-Jun-2025
Posts
10,455

Post History

Post
#1059618
Topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Time

ray_afraid said:

yotsuya said:

Rogue one just has proven how bad TFA really is.

I didn’t care much for TFA, but how has R1 “proven” it to be bad?
I hope that doesn’t sound condescending or whatever, I know how these things can read in the current mood of the forum, I’m just curious.

It had the right star field, duh (the true measure of a film’s quality).

Post
#1059486
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Dominic, I see what you mean; of course his presence is not necessary. But you said in your earlier post that he “does not belong in this movie.” That’s a bit hyperbole, I think, and implies that his presence is damaging. I just wonder in what way you think his presence is damaging to the film.

I know I said that but I guess I didn’t really mean it in such a definitive way as “there’s no scenario in which Vader should be in this film.” I more meant “in this movie, as it is (not how it could be), Vader doesn’t belong.”

I don’t think the mere presence of him is damaging, I just don’t think they really do anything with it. His first scene with Krennic is completely perfunctory and takes away valuable time from the film that could have been used on any number of other things. His second scene, in the hallway, is worthwhile from a general SW lore perspective, but really, when looking at this film by itself, it really is kind of tacked on lip service, no matter how well done.

When you look at bringing back a character, you should ask what they bring to the film by being there. Now with a character like Dodonna or Red Leader, they’re bit roles in the original and bit roles here, that’s fine, nothing wrong with that. But Vader is such a big deal. Bringing him in, you should be asking “what is his purpose in this story?” He’s up at the tippy top with the Emperor, so on the one hand he didn’t really need to be in the film, just as the Emperor wasn’t. But of course Vader is also the closer, the guy you bring in to get shit done. So yeah, from the perspective of the character’s function in universe, what he does at Scarif makes perfect sense. When you look at the story of this film, however, this isn’t some sort of The Longest Day docu-drama type movie where we’re jumping around to different people throughout. This is the story of a very specific band of Rebels on a mission. So you need to look at Vader from the Rebels’ perspective. To them, he’s an unstoppable force of terror, much like the Death Star in many ways. He’s the embodiment of despair and the loss of hope against the war with the Empire. So there’s definitely a way to weave him into this story if they wanted to. The issue is, the Rebels never so much as mention Vader. He’s not a looming presence or anything. He certainly strikes terror when they go up against him, but that’s just one scene almost completely divorced from the narrative of the film beyond the simple “this is what happened next.” Because, by the time Vader shows up, the Rogue One team has already transmitted the plans, completed their mission, and all died. And the plans do make it on to the Tantive just fine. Vader’s just one last issue, a conflict for a group of red shirts we haven’t met until this scene. I wasn’t surprised when I heard that they added this scene late in the game, because if it was conceived during the initial development of the story I’m sure it would have been integrated better.

To be clear, I don’t hate the scene; it’s very badass and very well done, and from a lore perspective it’s totally awesome to finally see. Just, in terms of this film and this story, it’s not necessary.

Post
#1059479
Topic
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - Fan Edit Ideas thread...
Time

Watched the film again and I don’t really think a fan edit could significantly improve it any way. You could certainly streamline things - I think cutting out Cassian and Bodhi’s intros and rearranging the first scenes after the title card would probably be for the best, also definitely cut Krennic meeting Vader - but the real issue with the movie are too baked into the story to change without any deleted scenes (which probably wouldn’t be of any help anyway).

Crawl is a bad idea.

Post
#1059469
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

You could cut Vader out of the film entirely and it wouldn’t change the story in any way whatsoever.

it wouldn’t change the stand-alone story in any way worth crying about, but it certainly would raise more a few questions about how it ties in to ANH (or how it fails to tie in if you cut out Vader). thats my opinion.

I definitely makes sense to put him in the film to tether the worlds of both together, but the plot of the original film doesn’t necessitate Vader being at Scarif, for instance.

I’m not saying Vader shouldn’t have been in the film I just mean to say that, if he’s going to be in it, he should have been a bit more consequential to the story. As is, neither of his scenes really accomplishes all that much.

Post
#1059456
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

Saw the film again last night. Still really fun. I think I appreciate the secondary aspects more with each viewing (cinematography, vfx, score) while the story doesn’t tend to hold up as much. Unfortunately, unlike my experience with TFA, the things that bother me don’t bother me less with each subsequent viewing, but more.

Ultimately, it’s still a really cool side tale. It’s hard for me to judge it as a film unto itself because it’s not really that. It’s an EU movie. So some things are great from an overall “this is a peek into the universe” perspective but don’t work as a single standalone story.

This is where my fear of the Vader scene diminishing upon repeat viewings come in. Because, as great as it is to finally see the real terror and havoc he can wreak, ultimately, the scene (and really the character in general) does not belong in this movie. He brings nothing to the story at all. So while it’s nice to see him show up because he obviously has a key role in this period of time in this galaxy, in the end, he serves no purpose to the film.

And that’s really my issue with the film overall (and I’ve said this before), it was kind of trying to do too many things, and not just story-wise but tonally too, by trying to be a capital SW Star Wars movie while it also was this side story unto itself (and should have focused more on that, with a smaller scope).

Post
#1059104
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

SilverWook said:

McInerney is 80, he’s on the Fox News payroll, and is apparently a member of the Obama birther cult. Do the math. 😉

I said I found it. If I said anywhere in the post that it is fact or that I believed it, redo the math.

😉

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lol, a straightforward CNN article is trash but Zero Hedge is cool.

That is such a weak comparison. No-one said the Zero Hedge article was cool except for you. So much for you dropping things “again” I guess, lol.

What you did here is no different than Trump pointing to Fox News as a source for his wiretapping claims. Paraphrasing: “I never said it was true, I’m just pointing out what some other guy said.”

Maybe you should ask yourself why some here were so ready to believe that you agree with the contents of the article.

I am not a Trump supporter

Yeah ok

Post
#1059033
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

Alderaan said:

chyron8472 said:

As Hillary said, she would have been a good president

No. No she wouldn’t have been. She would have been god-awful terrible. Just like Trump is god-awful terrible, but in a different way.

Just because Trump is a joke, and he is, does not mean she would have been good or better.

It was truly a lose-lose situation in this country.

Woah, I think that’s the first thing I agree with you on 😛

And another thing I disagree with both of you on.

If Trump has proven anything, it’s that those who said he would be god-awful terrible were more right than they feared, and those who said he’d be a funny meme who wouldn’t get anything done were very wrong (although thankfully as of today at least one thing has been narrowly prevented).

I cannot fathom how Clinton would have been in anyway worse or even a fraction as bad. Cannot at all.

Everything that people feared from her is showing up in spades. Lying through teeth? Check. Personal interests over country? Check. Lining pockets with foreign dollars? Check. High chance of starting a war or two? Check. Flagrant disregard for the needs of the working class? Check. Gross incompetence that threatens national security? Check. Goldman Sachs? Check. Keeping the swamp full of bureaucratic insiders? Check. Being too tired to put the in the hours necessary? Check.

I guess he isn’t murdering his critics* or running a kiddie porn ring out of a pizza place though.

*yet

Nice opinion piece Dominic, for a minute I thought I was reading a Washington Post or New York Times article, then I realized Hillary Clinton is a member of the forum. LOL.

😉

Thanks Donald.

Post
#1058974
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

As far as I can see it’s 60 minutes of some guy talking about Garfield. Unless I’ve missed something, how is that a movie?

It’s a commentary on our post modern world, setting its sights on the very idea of criticism with biting irony and satire, without a hint of sarcasm that so often befalls other works of parody. It employs actors, production design, uses the entire Philip Glass score for Kundun, and in a similar vein to Best Picture winner Birdman and Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope, uses a single, unbroken take. It’s production values are high enough to be considered a professional effort, I don’t know what to really call it if not a movie, it is certainly art of some kind.

Seems more like some sort of video essay? I mean the concept of “movie” is a rather nebulous term so technically you could apply it to all manner of videos. That doesn’t mean you should, though.

Then F for Fake isn’t really a movie if “video essays” are excluded? It’s much more than just that one video, it’s really crazy the further you dig into it, requiring a near decade worth of preparation. I just felt like sharing it. I honestly did not expect controversy posting it, I put it here after being reprimanded for posting a video in the random images thread, since there’s no thread for non-Star Wars video finds.

F for Fake is a documentary too, though, and was released theatrically. (and now that I think of it, video essay isn’t really a good descriptor for that video because usually they’re essays presented through the cinematic medium rather than just told to the camera and they definitely tend to fall more into the category of “movies.” maybe video lecture would be better? a video lecture plus fun stuff that pops up.)

Listen, I don’t personally have an issue with you calling it a movie, I just think it’s a really weird thing to do.

Also, I feel like there must be an off topic equivalent of this: http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/YouTube-Vimeo-etc-Star-Wars-finds/id/11772
because I’m sure I’ve seen it before, and if there isn’t I see no reason why someone can’t just start that thread.

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

Honestly, it’s not as if TFA is some kind of masterpiece even worth raving about. It was okay, not amazing, not awful. I’m sick of seeing all this condescension over it.

Isn’t this post itself condescending?

I don’t give a damn, I’m sick of seeing the same fight over and over again in every thread.

Me too (and I know I’m part of the problem), just thought it was weird that you criticize using the same behavior being criticized.

Also, I think it’s pretty clear DE is on the same page as you there.

I don’t. He was one of two instigators which prompted my post.

Yeah but that was a joke man. Look at literally another post by DE on the subject, including this one from the same exact page: http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1058897
where he says that he’d rate the film 7/10 (or average, how you described it), if it weren’t for the Starkiller Base, which makes him rate it 6/10 (or below average).

I’m taking a break from this place.

Sure, if that’s what you think is best. I personally think you just need to lighten up a bit and stop taking things so seriously.

Post
#1058952
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

joefavs said:

Eh, if I’m being honest I’m sure I won’t stay gone, but I do think I need a break. It seems that the board is becoming more about hating most of Star Wars than liking any of it.

We seem to be of the same mind about this (and many other things) so I do hope it won’t be a permanent break. I should really spend less time here to but I’m dumb and can’t help myself.

Post
#1058950
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jeebus said:

Alderaan said:

chyron8472 said:

As Hillary said, she would have been a good president

No. No she wouldn’t have been. She would have been god-awful terrible. Just like Trump is god-awful terrible, but in a different way.

Just because Trump is a joke, and he is, does not mean she would have been good or better.

It was truly a lose-lose situation in this country.

Woah, I think that’s the first thing I agree with you on 😛

And another thing I disagree with both of you on.

If Trump has proven anything, it’s that those who said he would be god-awful terrible were more right than they feared, and those who said he’d be a funny meme who wouldn’t get anything done were very wrong (although thankfully as of today at least one thing has been narrowly prevented).

I cannot fathom how Clinton would have been in anyway worse or even a fraction as bad. Cannot at all.

Everything that people feared from her is showing up in spades. Lying through teeth? Check. Personal interests over country? Check. Lining pockets with foreign dollars? Check. High chance of starting a war or two? Check. Flagrant disregard for the needs of the working class? Check. Gross incompetence that threatens national security? Check. Goldman Sachs? Check. Keeping the swamp full of bureaucratic insiders? Check. Being too tired to put the in the hours necessary? Check.

I guess he isn’t murdering his critics* or running a kiddie porn ring out of a pizza place though.

*yet

Post
#1058949
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

As far as I can see it’s 60 minutes of some guy talking about Garfield. Unless I’ve missed something, how is that a movie?

It’s a commentary on our post modern world, setting its sights on the very idea of criticism with biting irony and satire, without a hint of sarcasm that so often befalls other works of parody. It employs actors, production design, uses the entire Philip Glass score for Kundun, and in a similar vein to Best Picture winner Birdman and Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope, uses a single, unbroken take. It’s production values are high enough to be considered a professional effort, I don’t know what to really call it if not a movie, it is certainly art of some kind.

Seems more like some sort of video essay? I mean the concept of “movie” is a rather nebulous term so technically you could apply it to all manner of videos. That doesn’t mean you should, though.

And, though I’m sure you know, neither Birdman nor Rope is really a single, unbroken take.

Post
#1058598
Topic
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - Fan Edit Ideas thread...
Time

Jeebus said:

ForceGhostRecon said:

I’ve taken out Tatooine… works much better now. Vader also now says “Send a detachment to retrieve them.” instead of “Send a detachment DOWN to retrieve them.”

https://vimeo.com/209742146

(still needs to be fine-tuned, but gets the idea across)

Very nicely done.

What version of the Imperial March did you use when for when Vader boards the Tantive and assesses the aftermath?

Sounds like the one from RO when Krennic meets Vader.

Post
#1058584
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Lol!

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-healthcare-pass-ahca-obamacare-2017-3

President Donald Trump is giving House Republicans an ultimatum: Pass the American Health Care Act on Friday, or Obamacare stays.

Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Budget and Management director, made clear to Republicans on Thursday night that Trump wants a vote Friday and that he is done negotiating on the bill to overhaul healthcare. If it is not passed, the president will move on from the bill, reports said.

This is kind of brilliant, in a way. Republican’s want to repeal and replace, so if it doesn’t happen he’s shifted the blame entirely. Meanwhile, they will continue to benefit from all the Obamacare things they would have otherwise lost. So this is pretty much the only way to ensure this bill doesn’t irreparably damage Trump in the eyes of his voters (which is why Dems will need to start leaning in even harder on calling it “Trumpcare” and making it clear this is his failure).

It will be interesting to see how the vote plays out. Either way some Republicans aren’t going to make it out alive. The Dems lost a lot of seats because of the ACA in 2010, and it wasn’t nearly as unpopular as this.

Post
#1058578
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563298

CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.

When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).

If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.

This is irrelevant to the articles posted. Again, please point out the bias and inaccuracies in the articles.

Again, they are known for hot air.

If anything that article quote was implying the opposite.