DominicCobb

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.

joefavs said:

That’s just the worst Sith name in the long, sad, dumb history of bad Sith names.

The worst only because Darth Icky and Darth Insanius never made it through: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/04/04/fall-of-the-empire-how-inner-turmoil-brought-down-a-legendary-studio.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

I know. Not sure why I wrote that.

DominicCobb said:

I don’t want to encourage the necrobumping of this thread, but Rocky 7 is a spin-off of sorts called “Creed” and about Apollo’s grandson. Silly idea but he’s played by the always fantastic Michael B. Jordan and it’s directed by Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station) so I’ll likely see it when it comes out later this year.

Rando bump especially considering I saw Creed more than a month ago but Creed is great.

Well, obviously lighting is an integral part to the visual storytelling (and visual storytelling is really what Star Wars is all about) but complaints about the lighting are silly because the lighting in TFA is great.

I’ve heard conflicting reports of Lucas’s treatment and how much of it was used.

Way back when, I thought Arndt’s draft was based off the Lucas treatment, and then Abrams and Kasdan’s draft was based off the Arndt draft. But then I soon learned that Abrams and Kasdan pretty much jettisoned Arndt’s draft and started from scratch. Until very recently I was sure that was the way things went down, but now I don’t think was the case at all. My first hint was that Arndt got screenwriting credit on the film, which meant that at least some of his draft made it into the final film. Then I also noticed he’s listed as an associate producer in the end credits, and he did a Q&A about the film with Abrams and Kasdan where he talked about the development of the script and it sounded like his version wasn’t too far off from what we got. Now, after skimming through The Art Of book, it appears much of what was in the Arndt draft made it into the film in one way or another, and that Arndt and Abrams were very much working together for a good stretch of time to develop the story. Some things are more or less the same, though a lot of things in the final version have simply been developed out of ideas in the Arndt draft. It sort of leaves me to wonder why Arndt left at all (since I had thought it was just because his version was completely different), and I can only imagine it was a too many cooks situation with JJ wanting to write and also to bring in Kasdan.

But where does this leave the Lucas treatment? Well it seems like LFL threw it in the trashcan right away. I don’t know if it was terrible or what, but it sounds as if the Arndt draft had nothing to do with it.

gwarguy66 said:

I have to disagree with you. Star Wars was the title, however the subtitle is “The Tragedy of Darth Vader”. So I believe it needed to be told.

Actually the subtitle was “The Adventures of Luke Skywalker (as taken from the Journal of the Whills)”. “The Tragedy of Darth Vader” is something Lucas came up with 20 or so years after the fact.

StarChewyWar said:

SilverWook said:

The original Han Solo novels are backstory, but well written and a lot of fun. It’s sad Brian Daley isn’t around to pen a script, as he knew what made Han tick.

Rogue One feels like it might be in the vein of a World War II action movie. Somewhere between The Dirty Dozen and The Guns of Navarone. Knowing who won the war or a certain battle doesn’t mean you can’t tell a compelling tale against that backdrop.

Boba Fett could go in just about any direction. If they stick to the concept he operates by a code, he can be a bad ass, ruthless, and still have the audience on his side. And maybe they will have the guts to never show what he really looks like. The few EU novels I read had him using disguises on occasion to track down a quarry.

Doesn’t matter how good it is. It’s still backstory. Backstory is not good because it’s already been spoiled. I just hope they take the time to do more than flesh out the backstory.

Nope. SilverWook is completely right. Just because you know the outcome (or a part of it) doesn’t mean the story or the film is bad or not worth telling. I’m not saying the anthology movies are going to have stories that are completely worthwhile (I’m optimistic, but a little skeptical myself) but to just say without any doubt that they’re not good because they’re backstory is ridiculous and quite narrow-minded.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) - Three times. A

ST Into Darkness is definitely not generally considered to be bad. Only so by hardcore Trekkies.

TV’s Frink said:

For once I agree with Bosk. Some people shouldn’t watch it again, in fact they probably shouldn’t have watched it the first time.

I agree but from what Ric posted it sounded like he just wasn’t in the proper mindset.

RicOlie_2 said:

I’m going to say that this is probably half of why I didn’t enjoy TFA:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/31/theres-a-scientific-reason-new-years-eve-is-generally-terrible/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

I didn’t find the movie really absorbing. I spent too much time thinking about it while in the theatre. Whether this is TFA’s fault, or my own, or the fact that the movie wasn’t focused properly on the screen, or some combination thereof, I’m not sure. I think I would have enjoyed the film more had I not been analyzing it while watching it, simply because I wouldn’t have noticed the flaws so much.

I think you’d enjoy it a lot more if you saw it again.

joefavs said:

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Kylo Ren was able to murder the rest of the Jedi students so effectively because he was the only one who had a lightsaber. I’m thinking Luke didn’t want to pass on that knowledge right away, but Snoke showed Ben/Kylo as a seduction tactic. The companion books refer to both Snoke and the design of the cross guard saber as “ancient”, so it wouldn’t be out of place for those instructions to come from him. I figure if Kylo learned from Luke, he’d have built a more conventional saber, and if Kylo didn’t learn from Luke, there’s no reason to think anyone else did. It would also justify his unimpressive performance against Rey, since in this scenario he wouldn’t need to have been a particularly skilled duelist to wipe out Luke’s academy or whatever he called it (Praxeum? 😉).

I agree. The thought had occurred to me when I was writing a post here a few days ago. Makes perfect sense to me.

I guess the question you ask is, how long was Ben training under Luke? A lot of things are unclear at this point, unfortunately, but it sounds like Ben went off to train with Luke before he was a full grown adult and hasn’t been seen by his parents since. Sounds to me like he could have been a teenager. I suspect it’s been about ten years since his purge of Luke’s academy so he probably wouldn’t have been a student for too long so not having a lightsaber is not inconceivable.

I think it’s possible Luke was avoiding teaching them how to build a lightsaber because he didn’t think it would be necessary. “A Jedi uses his power for knowledge and defense, never attack.”

SilverWook said:

Star Wars itself is a retro movie, which sprung out of his thwarted plans to make a Flash Gordon film. Even Raiders is a glorious throwback to cliffhanger serials.

I think seller’s remorse is kicking in.

And not every space movie that came out in Star Wars’ wake was a bomb either.

It’s funny because Lucas says he tried hard to make every film “different” but TPM is as much an ANH rehash as TFA.

Yoda Is Your Father said:

And you know what?.. I would NEVER pipe up about how terrible the editing was on a Star Wars movie. Sure, I might say I don’t like it, or this and that bit sucked, but real, granular filmmaking critique?.. I’m simply not qualified, and I know how amazingly hard it is to balance every voice in the room and still end up with a finished product that makes sense and entertains people.

The director of every film you’ve ever seen, even the bad ones, deserves respect simply for getting a movie made and released in the first place. That doesn’t mean we can’t critique it (that’s part of the fun), but it always amazes me how easy people think it is, and how everybody thinks they can do better.

Yes, thank you.

As for Leia’s face. Honestly the level of overlapping sexism and ageism in nerd circles is a bloody disgrace. It makes me feel ashamed to own small plastic dolls in the shape of aliens and robots it really does.

Yes, thank you.

imperialscum said:

Jay said:
The lack of conversation about it by modern filmgoers says more about them than the movie.

I don’t like this kind of attitude. Just because you find it special, please don’t assume it is special for the fact and that there is something wrong with everyone who doesn’t find it special.

I don’t like this kind of attitude. Just because other people find it special doesn’t mean it’s not.

Jay said:

imperialscum said:
The way I see it, Citizen Kane just doesn’t have enough depth, width and appeal to provide the grounds for “geeking out over” it. It is just a boring snobbish film.

I found it pretty riveting the first time I saw it. The lack of conversation about it by modern filmgoers says more about them than the movie. Or it could be that it’s been talked about to death already.

I like lasers and lightsabers and trench runs, but I also like thinking sometimes, too.

Agreed.

There were moisture vaporators on Jakku as well.

Didn’t like the pacing, fine. Could have been better, sure. But terrible editing? That’s just downright silly.

A good amount of the AOTC score is a hack job and ROTS is no better. ROTS has some good highlights but the original stuff is basically just a collection of “epic” cues with practically no cohesion beyond the force theme. Battle of the Heroes is fantastic but it only occurs once, in the final duel, so hard to consider it a real theme in that regard.

For those who appreciate film scores when taken as a whole, TFA is easily the best of the saga since at least TPM or maybe even ROTJ or ESB (TPM is very solid but unfortunately I find a lot of it boring, plus Anakin’s theme, while nice, doesn’t really fit; ROTJ doesn’t have much in the way of themes that carry and develop throughout the score but it does have some of the biggest highlights of the whole saga).

TFA’s new themes might not be as instantly memorable as some previous ones but they are memorable once you get to listening. Kylo Ren’s two themes, Poe’s theme, the Resistance march, and especially Rey’s theme (one of Williams very best in recent memory) have been stuck in my head for the week and a half.

If I have one criticism of the score it’s that there aren’t too many moments where the music really takes over and drives the film. Williams might have pulled one two many punches in that regard. But otherwise the score is another brilliant musical work as only the master could do.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Disagree. While Empire might be the best Star Wars film, in my opinion the best FILM of the saga is Star Wars. That is, Empire is arguably the most defining and impactful piece in building the saga (the force, the family, the Yoda, the love story, the redemption, etc). But if each film were to be judged against the landscape of great films, in my opinion the only one that really stands on its own at a comparable level alongside the greats like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc., is Star Wars.

Yes! I love SW and ESB equally but for different reasons. I’ve been trying to put a finger on it for awhile but that sounds very right to me.

TK428 said:

Every film must be judged on its own merit. Even if CITIZEN KANE is a 5 star film (whatever grading scale), it’s 5 stars on its own merit. The scale must be applied within the confines of what the film is trying to do and does it succeed and was it bad, good or great. Just my opinion.

SW77 - ***** stars
TESB - ***** stars
ROTJ - **** stars
TPM - ** stars
AOTC - * star
ROTS - *** stars
TFA - ****½ stars

Nice. I like to rate films on their own scales too. Most don’t, but that way makes more sense to me.

Alderaan said:

DominicCobb said:
That’s the point, though. He’s not intimidating without the mask - that’s why he wears it. Driver typically has a beard and looks very much his age (32). He very purposefully looks younger than that here. The problem is you’re thinking the “kind of role” is a Darth Vader type. It’s not. It’s someone who wants to be Darth Vader. It’s a different kind of role.

So you are conceding then that this film has no threatening villain?

Just because he doesn’t look intimidating doesn’t mean he’s not threatening.

Alderaan said:

DominicCobb said:

Abrams made a conscious decision to have Ren look younger (Driver usually sports a beard) and I think Hux was supposed to be an old guy at first. Hux is interesting and scary too. When you watch the Death Star briefing scene, you get the idea that a lot of those officers are probably in it for the money or the power. But Hux is like a Hitler youth. He’s not in it for himself, he’s in it for the cause. He actually believes the First Order is right and just - that’s scary.

I was more than OK with Adam Driver in this film for the most part. Until he was unmasked, I liked his character much more than I thought I was going to. I would say that up until he was unmasked, his performance was one of the strongest parts of the film. That said, when he took off the mask he was not intimidating or convincing. Either keep it on or cast someone else in that kind of role.

That’s the point, though. He’s not intimidating without the mask - that’s why he wears it. Driver typically has a beard and looks very much his age (32). He very purposefully looks younger than that here. The problem is you’re thinking the “kind of role” is a Darth Vader type. It’s not. It’s someone who wants to be Darth Vader. It’s a different kind of role.

As for Hux (Domnhall Gleeson), he gave one of the two worst performances in the entire film. His acting, if you can call it that, was cartoonish. The only thing missing was him twirling his evil villain mustache, but that’s simply because he didn’t look old enough to even grow one. Some of the casting decisions in this film were incredulous. As much as youth was needed in some parts (Daisy in particular was fantastic) other parts called for age and experience. How does someone who looks 25 get to be the senior most military commander in something like the First Order? Except for Harrison Ford, whose salary basically forced the entire script to be unnecessarily written around him, who else gave an experienced and nuanced performance? Where were the Alec Guinesses, Peter Cushings, James Earl Jones’s, and Kenneth Colleys in this film?

Did you read my post? He’s supposed to be a Hitler youth type (uber-dedicated to the cause, shooting up through the ranks at a young age). Gleeson, like Driver, usually has a beard (and is also 32). He is supposed to look young here. The First Order is not the Empire. Hux is not Tarkin.

Do you complain about every aspect of every movie you watch or just this one?