DominicCobb

SilverWook said:

Does the EU have a lot of made up swearing? (Ala frack and felgercarb in classic Battlestar Galactica.) We only hear hell and damn in the OT, and whatever the heck Artoo says when Threepio warns him to watch his language.

The old Marvel book and the Brian Daley novels had Han and even Chewie flirting with lovely ladies, (and Han was making out in the rough cut of the cantina scene) so they can get away with at least that much.

Boba Fett can operate by a code, and be more honorable than his fellow scum, but they shouldn't shy away from him killing in cold blood if the story calls for it. I was watching the most recent Riddick movie the other day, and thinking Vin Diesel could be a great Fett!

Star Wars should just go with normal swearing, in my opinion. Galactica also made up words for units of time and distance, something Star Wars doesn't.

By the way if people are interested in chiastic structure in the Star Wars saga then this is a great read, also more believable and something that people here would appreciate more: http://dejareviewer.com/2014/05/20/cinematic-chiasmus-the-empire-strikes-back-is-a-perfectly-symmetrical-film/

(By the way I posted that article awhile ago in general discussion but no one commented so I thought it'd be worth posting again.)

It's no secret that Lucas wanted his two trilogies to "rhyme." But there's not a whole lot of, um, rhyme or reason to the repetition. This guy's trying to come up with an explanation for it. But I think he's reading too much into it. Some, probably even most, of the parallels he draws are obviously intentional, but I don't think there was an overall design to them.

I highly doubt Lucas structured his saga as a ring trilogy, and, even if he did, it doesn't really make me appreciate the prequels that much more. The biggest issues with them still remain.

Thing is, a lot of people make fun of the "it's like poetry" quote, but I agree with Lucas, there is an interesting storytelling technique in repetition. I can't quite explain it, but I do believe having the trilogies rhyme was a fantastic idea. To show Anakin and Luke in similar situations and how they deal with them differently is an compelling way to connect their stories and reveal things about their characters. 

Of course all of that means nothing when the movies aren't all that good.

But sometime you just gotta say fuck it, and use some swears. 

I'm leary of Star Wars going "dark" as often times filmmakers mistake over seriousness for darkness. Star Wars has gone to dark places and I think it's fine if they continue to, but the point, as always is to tell an entertaining story. If the darkness gets in the way of that, it's a problem.

Back to the sex and swearing, if they ever make a Han Solo or bounty hunter movie (which they likely will) I'll be annoyed if neither of those things are present. They don't have to go for an R rating, but keeping it kid friendly would just ring false.

Both the books and the films are fantastic and well worth watching. Certainly better than all the other YA bullshit that came after. 

Drink doesn't know what he's missing.

Been awhile since I posted here, so this is actually everything I watched this December. I will try to be brief.

The Imitation Game (2014) - A pretty fantastic film. A great example of how to make a fresh and engaging biopic, though, like many biopics, I feel like there was more that could be explored. Still, commendable filmmaking all around. A-

Foxcatcher (2014) - Another great and unconventional biopic, this time even more so. Haunting and heavy, though perhaps too much so. We're supposed to be disconnected from the characters, but sometimes that leads to being disconnected from the movie and drifting out of it. Still an exceptional film. A-

Whiplash (2014) - This is a wow, a real revelation. In a great year for thrillers, who would guess the best one was about a drummer and his instructor? An incredibly well made and tense and taut and insightful film about dedication determination and ambition. Scary, exciting, and highly recommended. A

Starcrash (1978) - How can I review a movie such as this? It is startlingly bad, and yet, I love it. Just about everything in this film left me scratching my head, but with a big smile on my face. A very strange delight. Hard to give a grade - if I was being objective it would be an F - but I kind of loved it so B-

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) - It's been kind of sad to see this trilogy get so much flak, though I'll admit a lot of the criticism is well founded. Still, I think these films are an absolute delight, the first installment especially. This is the one with all the adventurous spirit, and it's somewhat unfortunate that the following installments dropped that. It's what made AUJ so fun. When I look back, it's strange, but, despite it's shortcomings, this might be the best of the three. B+

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) - If not, this is the best. The adventure is gone but the fun is still there, perhaps even more so. This is probably the most exciting and downright enjoyable of the whole trilogy. After watching the behind the scenes on this one, I have to say I am really impressed with what was accomplished in such a short amount of time, after they decided to split two films into three. I wish more people would appreciate this marvelous movie. B+

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) - Right now his is easily my least favorite of the three. I will reserve serious judgement until the extended, as I've found both the previous movies to be improved by their additions. This surely (hopefully) will be too. At present, the film is far too short. Gone is the epic scope and pacing. The dwarf company has been given the shaft as well as Bilbo and any sort of satisfying ending. Jackson listens to his fans too much. People complain that these movies are too long and that Return of the King has too many endings (a complaint that never ceases to anger me), so he's cut this down so much that it's basically just an action movie. Not what I want from a Middle Earth film. B-

Top Five (2014) - Chris Rock does Stardust Memories and it works pretty well. However, I kind of wish and expected that this would be funnier/have more jokes, but it spends a lot of time with people just talking and talking. This gives insight into their characters, of course, but it just isn't all that compelling. It's clear this film is more than just a comedy, and there's a lot in it that feels real and dramatic, but it's not really powerful enough. Which is fine, but it needed to be funnier to better hold my interest. B

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) - A fine grand old fantastical adventure film with some great Harryhausen effects. Unfortunately, like many effects driven films, new and old, the characters are lost in the shuffle, but it's still good fun. B

Locke (2014) - Another atypical, but terrific, thriller. Major props to the writer/director Steven Knight and to Tom Hardy for making a film based entirely in a car so captivating. I wish there was some way that the camera could have an arc of its own to increase the tension, but since their in one location the editing necessitated a constant cycling through of shots to keep things visually interesting. The important moments have shots that match, of course, but the camera just isn't as important as usually here. Anyway, rant over, very well made film. B+

Enemy (2014) - A very strange but arresting picture. Yet another good thriller. Everything's top notch here, though it's probably too ambiguous for it's own good. There's a lot of interesting ideas swirling, and they're all kind of just left up in the air. Wish they were explored further. B+

Team America: World Police (2004) - How have I gone so long without watching this? It's hilarious, and a perfect parody of dumb action movies (and a nice satire too). I really love the attention to detail and the care that was put into filming this. Most would just say, "hey a movie with dirty mouthed puppets? It can be done shittily and no one will care." But no, everything looks fantastic, and all (I believe) of the effects are done practically. Hats off. A-

Pootie Tang (2001) - I'm glad my friends made me watch this one because I fear I never would have otherwise. This film is absolutely hilarious and brilliant in the best way. Why does it get so much flak? Is it because people don't get absurdist humor? Who knows. I read up a bit on this and it is unfortunate to know that Louis C.K. (i.e. Pootie Tang writer/director and all around funniest man on the planet) didn't oversee the final cut, as I'm sure his vision would have been better. It's not a perfect film, and things do lose a bit of steam in the second half. I'm curious what his cut would have been and it's sad we'll probably never see it. But what we do have is still pretty dang funny and it's too bad more people don't appreciate that. If you disagree with me let me know and I'll sine your pitty on the runny kine. B

Ida (2014) - A rather beautiful and somber film. Fascinating story and characters and some good, old fashioned style. Sad, but worth watching. A-

Blue Ruin (2014) - Not your typical revenge flick. The hero's not a superhero, and the revenge is messy. Very messy. A stark and incredibly tense thriller. Great filmmaking on a small budget. A-

Her (2013) - Just as beautiful on second viewing. This is a film with exceptional emotional depth. I can for sure say now that this will go down as one of my all time favorites. A+

but this was never fun(ny)

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

I'm just saying that the ghost Anakin is not recognizably the dying Anakin.

And that's your opinion. I say the two are easily relatable.

DominicCobb said:

I am not saying that Luke (and the audience) would not realize who the ghost was supposed to be.

Well in fact you said Luke would not recognise the ghost which is the same thing as not realising it (or if we are really precise recognition is an essential step before realisation).

So it is an issue of semantics.

This discussion has drifted so far away from what I originally wanted to say about it that I feel there is no need for me to participate further.

Even I stop short at defending scripts written by Orci and Kurtzman.

The truth is, though, they're not completely worthless. If you get past the inconsistencies and the fridge logic, there's still interesting stories being told with interesting characters. Major props to Abrams, the cast, and the rest of the crew for bringing that out and making people forget about the inadequacies of the scripts. (Good thing there are new screenwriters for 3!)

The alternate timeline thing was a clever way to bridge the two universes and make everyone happy, but it does create some serious headaches if you think about it too much. I find it's easy, though, to put continuity issues aside and view these films on their own, as a reboot. 

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Obviously the only reasonable assumption (and the one everyone makes) is that the ghost is Anakin. But it's an assumption. My point is that Luke wouldn't really recognize his image and that point still stands.

You are the one making the assumption here. You assume people are too stupid to immediately realise who the ghost is. On what basis you make that assumption is beyond me (perhaps yourself?). But when I watched the film for the first time I immediately recognised who the ghost was. And personally I don't know anyone who didn't. So don't make such assumption. I am sure Luke was smart enough to recognise the ghost as well.

Once again you completely miss the point of my post. I grow tired of arguing with you.

Perhaps this is simply an issue of semantics. I'm just saying that the ghost Anakin is not recognizably the dying Anakin. I am not saying that Luke (and the audience) would not realize who the ghost was supposed to be.

why does this thread exist?

moviefreakedmind said:

TV's Frink said:

Alderaan said:

I haven't seen the new Hobbit films and probably won't. I really liked The Fellowship Of The Ring when it came out, I must have been 19 or 20. But when I watched it again in 2010 I didn't think too highly of it anymore, and Peter Jackson is a terrible, terrible director in my opinion. I think if people go back and watch these films at an older age, they may form a different opinion, similar to how a lot of PT fanboys stopped liking those "movies" once they grew up.

Return of the King was absolutely insufferable when I watched it in 2003. Other than Viggo Mortensen's performance, there was nothing redeemable about that flick at all.

 You're so right.  In my early 30's I was so impressed with these movies, but now that I'm in my early 40's I know better.

...

Or maybe you just don't like anything fun.

I myself was quite young when the LOTR films came out and I have fond memories of seeing them with friends from school, and re-watching them in my twenties I actually think I appreciate them more since when I was younger I watched them more for the action whereas now I enjoy the story much more. I can't stand it when people try to speak for everyone, and to assume that the majority of people who enjoyed the LOTR films (which were nearly universally acclaimed by critics, all of whom were likely fully matured adults) were just clueless children or fanboys is a pretty absurd statement. 

 Completely agree with this. Along those lines I don't think there were any children in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences when they gave Return of the King eleven Oscars. Say what you will about the validity of those awards, but they are voted on by industry professionals (i.e. more qualified film viewers than most of us I dare say) so I doubt they would give a record amount of trophies to an immature and "terrible" work. 

Speak for yourself Alderaan. I think Frink's got it right.

Obviously the only reasonable assumption (and the one everyone makes) is that the ghost is Anakin. But it's an assumption. My point is that Luke wouldn't really recognize his image and that point still stands.

Obviously it's the same actor, but it's hard to tell when one appearance is under heavy make up, has half his face covered by a mask, and has no hair.

If you ask me they look quite different (pretend the top pic has eyebrows if you please).

imperialscum said:

MathUser said:

It's prettty stupid, he saved him so he's at the point before he became evil right? That's why he gots normal color for his skin and normal body parts? But for some reason he's aged. Did Luke somehow create an alternate timeline or something?

There sure is an endless supply of PT lovers who come up with this stupid argument.

First of all, it is not that Luke saved anyone. His presence just triggered Anakin's return who then saved Luke. The old guy that died was Anakin... the Anakin Luke met and knew. It is only reasonable to appear in the age that Luke is supposed to recognise.

Except the Shaw ghost looks very little like the Anakin that Luke would recognize. 

Anakin appearing the way he did in the OOT makes just as much sense as appearing as Hayden. Of course, no one want to admit that because they hate the prequels. The concession is it's easier for the audience to assume who the ghost is supposed to be when it's Shaw if the haven't seen the PT. But, if they have, it's the other way around.

Personally I think neither makes sense (Anakin shouldn't be a ghost anyway). The fact that people argue for Shaw so adamantly is a little silly, though if I had to I'd take that side only because, when viewing just the OT, Hayden just seems very out of place.

Tobar said:

DominicCobb said:

The other thing people forget is that they are MOVIES. With a TV show you have more time to explore those things.

 Most Star Trek episodes are self-contained stories. They have about 45 minutes after commercials to tell a complete story and were easily capable of doing so. With a movie you have anywhere from 90 to 120 minutes to tell a story.

That excuse does not compute.

I'm not saying that you can't tell a philosophical story or whatever in a short amount of time. Just by nature of there being multiple episodes of TV show, you have far more time and chances to explore all those big ideas. With a movie, obviously there are movies that explore big ideas and what not (the film that my avatar comes from touches on a lot of those points, for example), but the thing is, when you have a MOVIE, it needs to be something big. There's a reason why people hate Insurrection. A MOVIE needs to be exciting so you have to dial in, and you can't necessarily focus on all of those ideas.

DominicCobb said:

What I always loved in the original Star Trek was the adventure and the character dynamics. As far as I can tell JJ's got that, so I am satisfied.

TOS had a charismatic captain that adamantly believed in what the Federation stood for and strived to follow its laws and edicts to the best of his ability. It had a half-Vulcan First Officer who quietly struggled with his humanity. Lastly, it had an honorable if ornery Chief Medical Officer who found joy in taking jabs at his green blooded friend.

JJ Trek has a reckless maverick with a complete disregard for the rules who skirts by on the seat of his pants. It has a pointy eared psychopath who regular pummels others when he loses control of his constant seething rage. Lastly it has an ornery Chief Medical Officer who doesn't get to do much.

JJ Trek just takes the pop culture stereotypes of the characters and turns up the dial.

 Yes the characters are not exactly the same. That's kind of the point. They're permutations on the existing characters. Firstly we're seeing them in their early years, and secondly there are some huge differences between the timelines. I don't want to see the cast play the exact same characters, because those aren't there characters. (notice how each Bond is really a different character in many ways.)

Which brings us to McCoy, who is pretty much exactly the same as his TOS counterpart. This is where I'll concede, you're right, he doesn't get to do much, which annoys me because he's one of my favorites. 

But they supplanted him with a monumentally more interesting Uhura than in the show so it wasn't just all the boys club (people like to talk about Star Trek's diversity, but please, female characters were never given anything to do on that show).

That's from September 2011, the month the blu-rays actually come out. So we'll probably know about a new release before we know the old blu-rays are out. Until an announcement, it's all speculation.

Pretend that JJ's doesn't have technology (whatever that means), morality, diplomacy, storytelling, friendship, vision, and social commentary (STID at least) all you want, but it does. Whether it does it successfully or not is another argument.

The other thing people forget is that they are MOVIES. With a TV show you have more time to explore those things. Compare it to the TOS and even TNG movies. They're closer to the JJ movies than I think a lot of people would like to admit. 

Also, I think a lot of people (unfairly) compare the JJ movies to TNG and DS9. Different things completely. As someone who's only ever fucked with TOS, I have to say I really don't care about those shows. What I always loved in the original Star Trek was the adventure and the character dynamics. As far as I can tell JJ's got that, so I am satisfied.

Oh my god I completely forgot this thing was a thing (is a thing?). The funniest thing about it is that not only did LFL green light it, but it took them 40 episodes to realize it was a bad idea.

Not that I think an animated Star Wars comedy show is inherently a bad idea, but to put it out at this critical moment for the franchise with the sequels coming out? Awful idea.

Also I remember the clips weren't very good.

JEDIT: Watched the trailer, don't know if I ever saw that. Have to admit there are a few good jokes in there.

"Bring my shuttle" is said not necessarily angrily. The primary emotion there is frustration. Disappointment causes frustration.

After Luke turns him down he is utterly disappointed.

So "bring my shuttle" is in fact correct for the situation according to your logic.

Besides that you're missing the fact that this SE change adds highly unnecessary footage and RUINS THE MUSIC. Enough said. Awful change.

Argument over. Stop arguing with imperialscum. Done. Stop it.

If we go down, reconnecting at TFN might be an interesting exercise.

We still don't know if Disney even has the ability to release the OOT, rights being with Fox and all. Boycott doesn't make sense.

F ds sht

Some of those Bond covers aren't too bad. From Russia with Love in particular is very cool, and very classic Bond. Just because those covers don't have the original poster art doesn't make them bad (though I'll admit, some of them are).

If it really is Justin Lin it isn't a bad choice. He's a very talented filmmaker. He hasn't done anything quite like Trek but I'm sure he's capable and I'm excited to see what he comes up with.