Mithrandir

NAlbert0 said:

Mithrandir said:

NAlbert0 said:

Hey everyone I’m way too new to the discussion and I posted this in the ESB:R thread. Anyone seen this in regard to the storyline through the PT:

Hey thank you so much for everything! It’s been a blast catching up with all the news, and am so excited for everything. I was wondering if you all have seen “The Star Wars Prequels are Secretly Brilliant?” I enjoyed it so much and don’t wanna assume everyone has. It could be some solid inspiration for your prequel ideas…
Hope y’all enjoy!

“The Star Wars Prequels are Secretly Brilliant?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2BNdF_NCVQ

Yes, though I disagree with the fact that the prequels are brillant in any way, it is a good idea to be implemented. The moral issues that derive from the Jedi’s overly rigidal code.

Aalenfae and I are of the idea that it would be more believable and consistent with the Vader we know and love in the OT if Anakin fell because he realised Windu was breaking the code instead of the current version where he falls because he is the one breaking it.

To achieve this, it is key that Anakin lets Shmi die by staying in Naboo in EPII because he only follows orders. Then he has premonitions about Padme’s death as well, and he is conflicted because again because his moral forces him to keep following the Jedi way of “letting things pass”. Palpatine tempts him, but he can’t do it. He does what is right, which is turning him over to the council. He cries in the council chamber because he’s letting his loved one die for “the greater good”. He then senses Windu is about to kill Palpatine. “how could it be? I was willing to let her die for this and you proved no better than the Sith”.

I was the perfect soldier. I’m the chosen one. I’m perfect. The rest are just lesser beings.

Vader. Crazy Full Metal Jacket style.

The continuation of this story with Luke’s position in the OT (and hopefully how he designs the new Jedi order in the ST) also would be a nice paralel of the generational conflict between the view of life and duty the Totalitarian WWII era youths had and how their sons in the 60’s post war generation saw it.

Those are some cools thoughts! In all honesty the whole dynamic of Windu and Anakin’s struggle could be angled in such a way that would be brilliant! I like your thoughts on the whole removal of the sand people slaughter. I actually don’t mind the scene, because it show how ‘everyone breaks the code and can use their anger’, but the way that you suggest actually causes more tension and makes it a lot clearer and more coherent when Anakin says “the Jedi look like the Sith”.

Do you have any ideas how those scenes could be edited in a way that would reflect those ideas?

I have made some WIP edits of the scenes in AOTC. Check them out here https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Kx80VdTyyocGtCSFh5MFVZcmM . The cuts I’ve talked about would be the videos named “she’s in pain” and “Tattoine rough cut” (which would be at the very end of the movie).

Regarding ROTS, I think that with some re arrangement it could work. There are lines that could have a new or different meaning and could collaborate with the idea, such as “something is happening, I’m not the jedi I should be” (because he realises he shouldn’t feel tempted).

NAlbert0 said:

Hey everyone I’m way too new to the discussion and I posted this in the ESB:R thread. Anyone seen this in regard to the storyline through the PT:

Hey thank you so much for everything! It’s been a blast catching up with all the news, and am so excited for everything. I was wondering if you all have seen “The Star Wars Prequels are Secretly Brilliant?” I enjoyed it so much and don’t wanna assume everyone has. It could be some solid inspiration for your prequel ideas…
Hope y’all enjoy!

“The Star Wars Prequels are Secretly Brilliant?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2BNdF_NCVQ

Yes, though I disagree with the fact that the prequels are brillant in any way, it is a good idea to be implemented. The moral issues that derive from the Jedi’s overly rigidal code.

Aalenfae and I are of the idea that it would be more believable and consistent with the Vader we know and love in the OT if Anakin fell because he realised Windu was breaking the code instead of the current version where he falls because he is the one breaking it.

To achieve this, it is key that Anakin lets Shmi die by staying in Naboo in EPII because he only follows orders. Then he has premonitions about Padme’s death as well, and he is conflicted because again because his moral forces him to keep following the Jedi way of “letting things pass”. Palpatine tempts him, but he can’t do it. He does what is right, which is turning him over to the council. He cries in the council chamber because he’s letting his loved one die for “the greater good”. He then senses Windu is about to kill Palpatine. “how could it be? I was willing to let her die for this and you proved no better than the Sith”.

I was the perfect soldier. I’m the chosen one. I’m perfect. The rest are just lesser beings.

Vader. Crazy Full Metal Jacket style.

The continuation of this story with Luke’s position in the OT (and hopefully how he designs the new Jedi order in the ST) also would be a nice paralel of the generational conflict between the view of life and duty the Totalitarian WWII era youths had and how their sons in the 60’s post war generation saw it.

TV’s Frink said:

Films are not all either shit or awesome. It’s not always a 0 or 1 situation.

Saying that when watching TFA the word fan film comes to mind is fine, describing it as a fan film is hyperbole.

That’s better.

Infact it’s not the cinematography of the movie what makes me think of fanfilms when watching it.

a_moldey_waffle said:

There are too many moments like when Han runs into the frame for the first time and stands there, waiting for the audience to finish cheering before saying his first line. It’s also off putting the way these moments were structured in that they were paced out in small doses as the film progressed.

It’s like the filmmakers are going: Ok everybody it’s now time to clap for the falcon - 20 min later - Ok folks here comes Han, time for another applause - 20 more min - Now here’s Lei and C-3P0, more applause please.
This 4th walled exhibitionism of OT imagery and characters distracts from the core narrative, which is something a film should never do. You enjoyed those moments in the theater but I can bet you’ll be cringing when you watch the BD by yourself.

Exactly how I felt. I called it flatness in my review, but you put words to this a thousand times better than how I did. It’s a movie that has all the elements there, but it presents them in a way that you think to yourself: “Wow, they made Han appear through that door” instead of “Han appeared through that door”. The implicit but unquestionable presence of “they” is what makes me unable to enjoy the movie.

Yes, to me, it’s exactly how you said. It’s putting the fourth wall in constant jeopardy.

The major members of the new “generation” of Star Wars characters–Rey, Finn, and Kylo Ren–all stood in the shadow of a past in different ways. Or said differently, each is a sort of “fan” of the same Star Wars stories that we know and love, and they all find themselves struggling with the canon.

Rey’s fandom is on full display in the form of a vintage X-Wing helmet and a doll of a rebel pilot–probably Luke, whose sandy footsteps Rey seems to be following in (…) Kylo Ren dwells on the good ol’ days of Darth Vader, frustrated like a 20-something who thinks that Baby Boomers are right about the rest of his lazy generation.

I’ve said this about Kylo even before the release of the movie. I didn’t notice to what extend Rey was depicted the same way as well. All the characters are fans. This stresses even more the jeopardy of the fourth wall. What’s iconic for us from our childhood is iconic for them as history. It gets you out of the movie.

While some users may see some of this as a “cynic exercise”…

a_moldey_waffle said:

the term ‘fan film’ really does come to mind when thinking about The Force Awakens (Much like J.J.'s Star Trek and Into Darkness).

Pew Pew, how cool, awesome, epic, cool, it’s gonna be epic, its goona be kuuuhl!

PS: And I’m the one who is all for including “legend” Anakin Skywalker and “legend” OWK references in Rebel Alliance scenes in OT radical fan-edits. But the whole point of the OT was that three no-ones can bring down a whole Empire with the only force of conviction and a few proton torpedoes.

Yoda Is Your Father said:

Mithrandir said:

You are the one who claims to have worked in the industry

I don’t claim to work in the industry. I work in advertising, not film. I was very clear that I work in a different industry, and therefore do not profess to know better than JJ, Kasdan, et al. In fact, that was my whole point.

Your whole point is “can’t make it yourself then don’t complain”. That posture would basically overrule a whole universe of professional art critics, and average people who have and can build an opinion based on justifications.

Mithrandir said:

I don’t know how you personally feel with your studies, but what you propose is just as if no one could give his thought on a building without being an architect.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. I just don’t believe that anybody here is HONESTLY of the opinion that the prequels are good movies. Even if you feel it’s possible to argue that they are superior in terms of originality and structure etc, they fail in the most basic ways like being an enjoyable way to spend two hours. I think arguing the case for the prequels on a TFA review thread is just argumentative posturing, using knowledge to assert a differing opinion for the sake of it. That’s not discussion, that’s antagonising and being contrary.

Check the lenght and complexity of the posts to see if it’s discussion with fundaments or just antagonising

And to use your building/architect analogy, of course, people can look at a building and say ‘I don’t like it, it’s ugly’ or whatever, but they probably shouldn’t start giving advice on how to structurally improve it. I’m also pretty sure that if they had a go at designing and erecting that building themselves, it would fall down - because actually making a building is different to reading a book about it.

I’m afraid you’d be surprised to know that the vast majority of western architects did not, do not, and will not build their designs themselves. That’s the whole point of designing; that the project exists in a completely etheral, non detailed plane while the actual building is charged with details. The design is always an intention, an idea or who something should be. Not the thing itself. And designs are always criticized.

Exactly like what a plot is. A plot is the basic premise of a movie. It doesn’t matter if Jakku is not Tattooine, because the plot is the first, most obvious structure of the film.

In a general level, there’s the protagoist feeling uncomfortable about living in the fringe of the galaxy.
In a more detailed level, there’s the protagonist living in a desert planet in the fringe of the galaxy.

Mithrandir said:

Just for the sake of curiosity, do you deem more important to know the difference between the technical capabilities of two camera-objectives than to know what do you intend to do with the camera? The former requires a certain training in optics and perspective, the latter is widely opinable even if you never handled a camera. Because it only needs some attention and a rational mind. That’s why everyone can criticize but a few can perform.

Knowledge builds itself concentrically from what’s general to what’s particular. Among other things, two movies can have the same plot and different details. Because when your mind processes stuff and makes a classification, details are the first things it discards.

Show off 😉

See above. It’s just an answer to your strange elliptical requirement of having studies to speak about the most popular example of pop-corn cinema.

Mithrandir said:

But really man, everyone is entitled to its own opinion, the point is that everyone can and should give his own view in a forum. Get off the pony.

Cool. Point taken. My opinion is that people on this board who claim to prefer the prequels over TFA are either nuts or lying. Maybe both.

Well, I just popped on here for my nightly internet LOLZ and looks like I got them.

I’m off to read my ‘Art of The Force Awakens’ book because I like seeing the love and thought that went into the movie to make it feel like Star Wars.

Bye.

Bye!

TV’s Frink said:

Of course I can. I blame everyone who has an opinion slightly different than mine!

I instead democratically respect everyone else’s shitty opinions.

TV’s Frink said:

Someone hasn’t read all 58 pages…

Well you can’t blame him!

Yoda Is Your Father said:
Judging from some of the posts I’ve seen, there are a lot of guys here who either study film, work in film, or teach film - genuine, educated fans of the medium we call cinema(…)
All I can assume is there are some people here who either a) like to show off their ‘superior’ knowledge of film theory by championing a contrary view or b) just like to argue.

I guess that having worked in the medium, you could oppose some serious justifications, it’s a DISCUSSION board. It’s not showing off. Everyone is trying to make a point and defending it. That’s how you build knowledge. You are the one who claims to have worked in the industry, but refuses to enlighten us with your overwhelming knowledge while you just laugh at the rest showing off a moral superiority God-knows where it comes from:

Yoda Is Your Father said:

You actually prefer the prequels to TFA. Lunacy.

Yoda Is Your Father said:
You’re nuts mate.

Yoda Is Your Father said:
A semen and dog shit sandwich for lunch is ‘original’, but I’ll take good ol’ ham and cheese any day of the week.

Awesome scriptwrighting. Did you go to cinema school?

I have not. I teach Epistemology of Art and (casually) Graphical language at different Universities. Do you authorize me to criticize the movie now without being marked as nuts?

I don’t know how you personally feel with your studies, but what you propose is just as if no one could give his thought on a building without being an architect.

Just for the sake of curiosity, do you deem more important to know the difference between the technical capabilities of two camera-objectives than to know what do you intend to do with the camera? The former requires a certain training in optics and perspective, the latter is widely opinable even if you never handled a camera. Because it only needs some attention and a rational mind. That’s why everyone can criticize but a few can perform.

Knowledge builds itself concentrically from what’s general to what’s particular. Among other things, two movies can have the same plot and different details. Because when your mind processes stuff and makes a classification, details are the first things it discards. That’s what Bingo said; it’s not actually superior knowledge but more like plain common sense.

After that it is absolutely arguable if two movies with the same plot can’t feel different, or be enjoyable.

But really man, everyone is entitled to its own opinion, the point is that everyone can and should give his own view in a forum. Get off the pony.

Yoda Is Your Father said:

Mithrandir said:

TV’s Frink said:

complaints about “lighting” are silly IMO.

Even if no one goes to the cinema and choses the movie based on its lighting; cinema is a visual art which has internal codes that make it a language; and therefore it can be evaluated according to those parameters. So it’s not a silly complaint. It’s just pointing out a detail for those who valorate the importance of details.

Do you think it was casual that the previous shot of Vader saying I’m your father was a contrapiccato, conveying more power, and that the one where he says it is weighted to the left making it unbalanced? That the final celebration in ANH was shot mainly using centered perspectives with bright spots eclipsing the vanishing points, evoking order? Do you think the sensation at the opening of ANH would have been the same had the gigant ship flew below the camera (casting no shadow) instead of over it?

Who needs film school when you can just hop onto /this site/ and learn everything you need to know about lighting, screenwriting and the rest.

I apologize if the post felt arrogant; I did not mean to lecture anyone at all. As a non native english speaker I can assure there is a lot of room for misunderstanding; specially when it comes to idiomatic expressions. In any case, the “do you think” wasn’t meant to be accusative or inquisitive but rethorical.

Apart from that, I regard any critic to be valid as long as it stands on a relatively deep justification. To keep those critics to oneself just not to be criticized would make a place like the forum loose its whole point which is to share opinions and thoughts.

I’d rather have a long-texts boring forum than non forum at all. But that’s my opinion.

Most of it, is.

TV’s Frink said:

complaints about “lighting” are silly IMO.

Even if no one goes to the cinema and choses the movie based on its lighting; cinema is a visual art which has internal codes that make it a language; and therefore it can be evaluated according to those parameters. So it’s not a silly complaint. It’s just pointing out a detail for those who valorate the importance of details.

Do you think it was casual that the previous shot of Vader saying I’m your father was a contrapiccato, conveying more power, and that the one where he says it is weighted to the left making it unbalanced? That the final celebration in ANH was shot mainly using centered perspectives with bright spots eclipsing the vanishing points, evoking order? Do you think the sensation at the opening of ANH would have been the same had the gigant ship flew below the camera (casting no shadow) instead of over it?

No, it’s not casual.

Check the latest interview with GL, he can clarify that a lot (I don’t agree with him however over the matter that visual storytelling hasn’t developed over the last century; I just think he didn’t look to European experiences enough).

That probably wouldn’t diminish Vader but would certainly diminish the Emperor in the previous six episodes.

It’s still the same. They are still raising the bar.

Kylo’s abilities could have been below Darth Vader’s without any trouble to the plot. If this ST happens in a sort of “dark age” after the fall of the Empire, then all abilities should be somewhat diminished.

Like a scientist in the Middle Ages, Kylo could have been inferior to all his predecessors, have worshiped the knowledge of older ages and desperately try to reach it while still being considerably superior to his peers in the time he lived in.

It’s not an objective failure of the movie though, but more of an absolutely subjective I would have done it differently.

TV’s Frink said:

Mithrandir said:

Mixed feelings for TFA. Like paying a visit to old elementary school classrooms, where you remembered things to be different than they actually are when you come back as an adult. There were more things I didn’t like, than the ones I liked; I think this film was a missed oportunity to actually having done something different. But in the end it’s star wars, and better this than nothing.

I find it funny how people will complain that the film didn’t do anything different, and then go on to complain about the things that JJ did that were actually different.

Well, funny or not, that’s exactly how I felt after watching the movie. In my opinion they changed things that shouldn’t have been changed (visual code, music approach, camera style, composition of the frames, etc) while got needlessly attached to other things that could have been changed (like the designs) or should have been different (like the plot).

To me it’s not a generic versus between innovation and preservation, but more of a disagreement on where did this movie innovate, where it did not, and where and what did it preservate or not.

Mixed feelings for TFA. Like paying a visit to old elementary school classrooms, where you remembered things to be different than they actually are when you come back as an adult. There were more things I didn’t like, than the ones I liked; I think this film was a missed oportunity to actually having done something different. But in the end it’s star wars, and better this than nothing.

Quoting from another thread:

What I didn’t like, I didn’t for the exact reasons I’ve been posting in the previous months to its release.

It felt (and it was actually) like a movie whose script was talked about in “uncountable walkabouts”; and made by a professional director with the hard of an aficionado which holds in the highest regard the ability to create something “cool” instead of something sensible.

I have complaints on many levels about this lievity of thought which lead to a certain post-modern flatness of the film (as I said, all the elements there, but not the same feeling).

I recognized all the elements on it that made the movie be StarWars. However it didn’t sound like it (generic adventure/harrypotter soundtrack). It didn’t look like it as well; on many aspects:

• The camera movements and angles weren’t much like the rest of the saga, PT included. (with its own transgressions, PT has at least some visual continuity with the cinematography of the originals)

-The illumination of the Imperial base bothered me. It felt a little like a cabaret. It is hard to tell this in a foreign language to me, but the impression was that it had nothing to do with the uniform fluorescent-white lighting the Death Star had. I deem this important since it implies actually a conception of the Empire as machine-like, flat and non human related ideology (the main color was gray while in TFA, Empire’s color is black).

-The designs weren’t really eyecatching to me. As a designer myself I found them all kinda inconclussive. More like they took the stuff from the OT and they said “change just something and make it different”. Take the Star Destroyer, change the bridge and make it look like the pieces moved after they were glued. Take the Tie Fighter and change the colors. Take the Xwing and (my God, OT design was way more plausible) make it two engines.

-Some scenes were overly accented or overly iconic. Some people love this; I don’t find it truly appreciable. From the top of my head, Han’s death, in a black enviroment (Xmen’s Cerebro like) with a ray of light falling over Han’s head… I can’t help picturing Abrams saying “epic cool epic man”.
Next to it, Vader and ObiWan’s meeting in ANH happened in a random, fluorescent lighted corridor. And it was just as significant as this scene. Or it was meant to be. A good movie can represent hate between to of its characters by the script only without the needing of the enviroment to be a lava planet, or a poor reformulation of the bridge of Khazad Dum.
I generally don’t like it when new outcomes of movies tend to eclipse significant moments or characters of previous installments of the same franchise. I was actually enthusiastic about the symbolism of TFA happening in the “middle ages” of the star wars saga. Because that would have put the public away from the basic premise of “this time it will be bigger, better, cooler”, and make something new on the contrary field. Like Kylo being basically a rookie in the force, a shadow of Luke which was as well a shadow of Anakin, but in the timeframe of TFA Kylo’s rough abilities suffice to keep everyone scared. But no, it didn’t happen. Anakin was supposed to be the greatest Jedi we’ve met in the saga, but somehow Kylo manages to make things with the force Anakin Skywalker could not do himself. The First Order makes a bigger Death Star. The death of the mentor is way more theatrical in TFA than in ANH even if ObiWan and Anakin are the real driving forces of the saga (at least to me, one good, one evil). It’s like the stakes are always higher.

-Recycled planets with different names.

-Green Enviroments. This I can’t really justify nor do I hope to be understood, but somehow the Narnia Forests don’t feel enough exotic to me to be in a galaxy far far away. It happens to some degree in ROTJ, and definetely happens to me in TFA. It’s not just the fact that they’re forests but the type of forests as well. And Skellig Michael was just Skellig Michael; even more with that helicopter shot, which took me completely out of the movie.
On the plot side of things:

-I had trouble to actually care for the characters, much as in the beginning of TPM, only that this was the whole movie. I just didn’t feel comfortable at a Star Wars movie where Kenobi and Skywalker are third person names and R2 and 3PO are barely in it. Somehow it was as if the movie just happened outside the social sphere I have been invested in for the last six movies. Which is quite logic but somehow didn’t feel right to me. I expected this to feel like some fresh air but was quite wrong actually.

-I don’t have trouble generally with chance or fate as a given for Star Wars movies. It happens in the OT, in the PT and it will happen in the ST. Things that bothered were how flat, thin, it all felt. Like it wasn’t way too thought. At points I felt like a massive juvenile mentality was behind the plot; like they done half the job well, which was detecting what actually worked in the OT, and half very bad, which was reformulating it into something (if not new) at least justified; this is understanding not only that it worked but WHY it worked, so that you can take the essence of that reason and apply it in a different way without having to be repetitive. Examples of this:

  -Vader was a masked villain, with robot voice. Let’s have a masked villain with a voice modulator, because it’s cool. (In this case it is being omitted that Vader was so because he was badly damaged; his life support system and cyborg nature was inmediately linked to his affiliation with the dark side and ceasing to be a human being).

  -The Empire built weapons of mass destruction. Let’s have the First Order build one too. (In this case it is being omitted how and where from, did the first order get the resources to build it. Not because the answer was important per se, but because the lack of answer to that questions leaves the weakness of the symbolism exposed: while the Empire was a metaphor of a totalitarian government, with the whole power of a State turned against its own people and that is why they can and would build a Death Star; the First Order is more like a political faction, funded by no one, who hasn’t clear goals. As I said in another thread, they’re basically neonazis building a nuclear weapon in a garage. Flat.)

At risk of being more extense, I leave without development similar points on yellow yoda, the resistance, etc.

Other thing that bothered me was the feeling that external reality poured into fictional reality. Ren is a fanboy of vader as much as any fan is. (how cool!) Han Solo is a famous character in the Star wars galaxy as much as he is in our reality (how cool!) Luke Skywalker is a pop culture mith as much as he is in our reality (how cool!)

I dreamed of these topics to be adressed with Anakin in the PT, but somehow this bothers me in TFA, when the same logic is used with other characters.

 -The whole Hitler speech. I remember dreaming of a sequence like that decades ago, as a child; when I thought everything had to be explicit and that somehow symbols had an innate power. I immagined uncountable times that gigantic banner with the symbol of the Empire and a parade. Then I understood that evil doesn’t generally annunciate itself, and that symbols and speeches are an unnecesary underlining. A fetiche. I find the scene at the end of AOTC to be a thousand times more mature than this one.

This is the overall feeling I could sum up from the movie: it is a movie that showed everything I would’ve wanted to see back when I was ten. As if it was thought by someone that age who keeps thinking what’s “cool” and fun and not what is intelectually interesting, even within Star Wars borders. I deem this to be regrettable: the best installment of the saga was directed instead by someone who put A LOT of thought on every single line of dialogue and thing that happened in the film; just check the diaries of production for amusement. Kershner’s work in ESB was magistral.

TFA had all the elements of StarWars but it had a very different flavour to me. It’s not a search of its own but more of a movie that delivers what was expected of it; without too much freedom and without too much thinking. Even if it doesn’t right their own wrongs, it made me more appreciative of the prequels as well. (which doesn’t mean I enjoy them, but that next to TFA they somehow belong more to StarWars to me)

And I’m leaving outside stupid Disney stuff which could alter any mortal; like people realizing about stuff at the same time and saying it in chorus, someone taking time in the middle of a battle watch a pilot, etc

SilverWook said:

As the Resistance X wings are practically Ralph McQuarrie’s concept painting of them come to life, I have no issues with them.

That’s exactly the problem I have with them. I don’t regard McQuarrie as a great designer but as a great concept artist. I believe the workflow of the designing process by the OT era was Ralph making a concept, GL aproving it, and the guys at ILM making a final version with some modifications which made it “technically” feasible. In the case of the X Wing, the idea of an engine split it too doesn’t really feel good to my gut. It could be four-engined as it was in the OT, or with two engines and the S-foils opening after the exterior line of the engines, which would remain whole.

At some things like this, I feel a little condescended as a fan. Like “see how faithful we are to the OT? we’re making real the original designs of McQuarrie, be happy”, while most of Ralph designs aren’t actually conclussive on theirselves without the part of materiality that was imported by ILM’s input. The DeathStar feels heavy on the final film while it was light in the design. Bubbleheaded star destroyers, Stormtroopers, Vader, etc.

The interior of the Starkiller did remind me of levels in the old Dark Forces/Jedi Outcast games. I half expected Kyle Katarn to show up.

It was expressionistic to me. Like with chiaroscuros. Han’s death matte painting was straight out of GianBattista Piranesi’s chiaroscuros.

Lest we forget, Vader himself has roots in old cliffhanger serial villains who are merely a guy in a scary mask disguising their voice.

Yet somehow those villains weren’t nearly as succesfuls as Vader. And if get it right, nor will be Kylo.

Not so subtle WWII imagery is nothing new in Star Wars either.

Trouble it’s that the reference is so obvious it gets you out of the movie.

Overall, I didn’t like the movie for the exact reasons I’ve been posting in the previous months to its release.

It felt (and it was actually) like a movie whose script was talked about in “uncountable walkabouts”; and made by an aficionado director which holds in the highest regard to create something “cool” instead of something sensible.

I have complaints on many levels about this lievity of thought which lead to a certain post-modern flatness of the film.

I recognized all the elements on it that made the movie be StarWars. However it didn’t sound like it (generic adventure/harrypotter soundtrack). It didn’t look like it as well; on many aspects:

• The camera movements and angles weren’t much like the rest of the saga, PT included. (with its own transgressions, PT has at least some visual continuity with the cinematography of the originals)
• The illumination of the Imperial base bothered me. It felt a little like a cabaret. It is hard to tell this in a foreign language to me, but the impression was that it had nothing to do with the uniform fluorescent-white lighting the Death Star had. I deem this important since it implies actually a conception of the Empire as machine-like, flat and non human related (the main color was gray while in TFA, Empire’s color is black).
• The designs weren’t really eyecatching to me. As a designer myself I found them all kinda inconclussive. More like they took the stuff from the OT and they said “change just something and make it different”. Take the Star Destroyer, change the bridge and make it look like the pieces moved after they were glued. Take the Tie Fighter and change the colors. Take the Xwing and (my God, OT design was way more plausible) make it two engines.
• Some scenes were overly accented or overly iconic. From the top of my head, Han’s death, in a black enviroment (Xmen’s Cerebro like) with a ray of light falling over Han’s head… I can’t help picturing Abrams saying “epic cool epic man”.
  Next to it, Vader and ObiWan’s meeting in ANH happened in a random, fluorescent lighted corridor. And it was just as significant as this scene. Or it was meant to be. A good movie can represent hate between to of its characters by the script only without the needing of the enviroment to be a lava planet, or a poor reformulation of the bridge of Khazad Dum.
  I generally don’t like it when new outcomes of movies tend to eclipse significant moments or characters of previous installments of the same franchise. I was actually enthusiastic about the symbolism of TFA happening in the “middle ages” of the star wars saga. Because that would have put the public away from the basic premise of “this time it will be bigger, better, cooler”, and make something new on the contrary field. Like Kylo being basically a rookie in the force, a shadow of Luke which was as well a shadow of Anakin, but in the timeframe of TFA Kylo’s rough abilities suffice to keep everyone scared. But no, it didn’t happen. Anakin was supposed to be the greatest Jedi we’ve met in the saga, but somehow Kylo manages to make things with the force Anakin Skywalker could not do himself. The First Order makes a bigger Death Star. The death of the mentor is way more theatrical in TFA than in ANH even if ObiWan and Anakin are the real driving forces of the saga (at least to me, one good, one evil). It’s like the stakes are always higher.
  -Recycled planets with different names.
• Green Enviroments. This I can’t really justify nor do I hope to be understood, but somehow the Narnia Forests don’t feel enough exotic to me to be in a galaxy far far away. It happens to some degree in ROTJ, and definetely happens to me in TFA. It’s not just the fact that they’re forests but the type of forests as well. And Skellig Michael was just Skellig Michael; even more with that helicopter shot, which took me completely out of the movie.

On the plot side of things:

-I had trouble to actually care for the characters, much as in the beginning of TPM, only that this was the whole movie. I just didn’t feel comfortable at a Star Wars movie where Kenobi and Skywalker are third person names and R2 and 3PO are barely in it. Somehow it was as if the movie just happened outside the social sphere I have been invested in for the last six movies. Which is quite logic but somehow didn’t feel right to me. I expected this to feel like some fresh air but was quite wrong actually.

-I don’t have trouble generally with chance or fate as a given for Star Wars movies. It happens in the OT, in the PT and it will happen in the ST.

Things that bothere were how flat, thin, it all felt. Like it wasn’t way too thought. At points I felt like a massive juvenile mentality was behind the plot; like they done half the job well, which was detecting what actually worked in the OT, and half very bad, which was reformulating it into something (if not new) at least justified; this is understanding not only that it worked but WHY it worked, so that you can take the essence of that reason and apply it in a different way without having to be repetitive. Examples of this:

-Vader was a masked villain, with robot voice. Let’s have a masked villain with a voice modulator, because it’s cool. (In this case it is being omitted that Vader was so because he was badly damaged; his life support system and cyborg nature was inmediately linked to his affiliation with the dark side and ceasing to be a human being).

-The Empire built weapons of mass destruction. Let’s have the First Order build one too. (In this case it is being omitted how and where from, did the first order get the resources to build it. Not because the answer was important per se, but because the lack of answer to that questions leaves the weakness of the symbolism exposed: while the Empire was a metaphor of a totalitarian government, with the whole power of a State turned against its own people and that is why they can and would build a Death Star; the First Order is more like a political faction, funded by no one, who hasn’t clear goals. As I said in another thread, they’re basically neonazis building a nuclear weapon in a garage. Flat.)

At risk of being more extense, I leave without development similar points on yellow yoda, the resistance, etc.

Other thing that bothered me was the feeling that external reality poured into fictional reality. Ren is a fanboy of vader as much as any fan is. (how cool!) Han Solo is a famous character in the Star wars galaxy as much as he is in our reality (how cool!) Luke Skywalker is a pop culture mith as much as he is in our reality (how cool!)

I dreamed of these topics to be adressed with Anakin in the PT, but somehow this bothers me in TFA, when the same logic is used with other characters.

-The whole Hitler speech. I remember dreaming of a sequence like that decades ago, as a child; when I thought everything had to be explicit and that somehow symbols had an innate power. I immagined uncountable times that gigantic banner with the symbol of the Empire and a parade. Then I understood that evil doesn’t generally annunciate itself, and that symbols and speeches are an unnecesary underlining. A fetiche. I find the scene at the end of AOTC to be a thousand times more mature than this one.

This is the overall feeling I could sum up from the movie: it is a movie that showed everything I would’ve wanted to see back when I was ten. As if it was thought by someone that age who keeps thinking what’s “cool” and fun and not what is intelectually interesting, even within Star Wars borders. I deem this to be regrettable: the best installment of the saga was directed instead by someone who put A LOT of thought on every single line of dialogue and thing that happened in the film; just check the diaries of production for amusement. Kershner’s work in ESB was magistral.

TFA had all the elements of StarWars but it had a very different flavour to me. It’s not a search of its own but more of a movie that delivers what was expected of it; without too much freedom and without too much thinking. Even if it doesn’t right their own wrongs, it made me more appreciative of the prequels as well. (which doesn’t mean I enjoy them, but that next to TFA they somehow belong more to StarWars to me)

And I’m leaving outside stupid Disney stuff which could alter any mortal; like people realizing about stuff at the same time and saying it in chorus, someone taking time in the middle of a battle watch a pilot, etc.

It’s a bad rehash, that’s my bet. JJ Abraham’s is a director/producer who leans towards “cool” stuff and hardly towards what works, or makes that “cool” stuff work.

For instance: we have another masked villain. Only that now we don’t know why on Earth he wears a mask. He, as well as Vader, betrayed his master and killed all the Jedi. But he’s even more “badass” than Vader, killing his father and making theatrical stances, cause it’s kuuuhl

We have an Empire, which builds a superweapon even more powerful than the Death Star! But how? In ANH you got it right from the beginning: a powerful, opressive organisation, with the economical power of a Galactic Government against a band of rebels hardly funded. How could a band of imperial outlaws build a machine sized as a planet?

It’s as crazy as trying to make a movie about a gang of Neonazis who build an nuke in their garage.

The idea of the First Order is lame. “the resistance” is lame. Killing han solo, is lame.

The third trilogy should have been about a war against a receeding Empire towards the Core. Instead we are almost exactly where the galaxy was in ANH, and we’re told “there’s a new republic, but it doesn’t count”…Han married Leia, but now they’re divorced…Luke had an Academy, but now he hasn’t it anymore…

One whole text to establish the difference between art and lower expressions and he comes with "art and entertainment". Thanks for sparing me time in answering.

Perhaps I should better keep rejoying in my snobbism while Ring Theory suddenly opens our eyes and makes the prequels reach the reputation of Citizen Kane or 2001...or Avengers in case those titles don't ring a bell. 

Just....meh

StarChewyWar said:

Mithrandir said:

Wazzles said:

 Also, I can sum up the ring theory in one word: recycling. 

 

Oh, the ring theory...something I've always wanted to write about but never found time to do it.

First thing I'd like to say is that I completely agree with Ring theory; I totally buy it, and yes, I have no doubt Lucas deliberately put those paralelisms there on purpose.

However, there's a problem with how the theory is presented, and the fascination that derives from it; and I can't help blaming some light-minded mentality on art which supposes that everything new, or everything that has not been done before has an artistic value per se (or in this case, change "before" for "recently" given the historical precedents set for Ring storytelling). This is the flagrant translation to art of the market value of innovation. Innovation, changing one's mindset, could be a very good work for science and economy but it's not necessarily for cinema, or drama, or music, or architecture, though it could, supposing you can actually develop your innovative concept to a point when it paralels the effects and complexity of the previous way of thinking.

You can relate this fascination with what's new even to the juvenile praising of plot-twists and poor JJ Abraham's Mistery Box. Whole studios (and viewers) that base their enjoyment of a movie (which, given a certain quality, could reach the level of being called a film) solely on the fact of being as ignorant as possible of its story. To these viewers the supposition of knowing the details of the plot would "spoil" them the entire spectacle. Exactly because their highest value is surprise, and because, to them the sense of fun lies in being dissoriented by the sudden rearrangement of plot-facts and questions instead of the traditional (+2000 years of history of art) extasis produced by overwhelming knowledge.

Traditional storytelling presents a trouble, and, if the resource is used at all, Deus ex Machina helps you suddenly solve the puzzle thus generating pleasure by knowledge; even ESB works this way and Nolan is the Master of DeM IMHO these days (used this way). Nowadays is the other way round, DeM only helps bring more questions, and it gives pleasure by not knowing.

Which is a different mindset, and I'm not saying I'm against it because cinema has proven to produce great films using that technique. On the other hand, mankind has proven to produce great art not using surprise as a value element at all. Take Aedipus and you know exactly how it is going to end, and it doesn't diminish it as a drama, and there are good greek tragedies, and bad ones. Or Les Miserables. Even take any movie of Paolo Sorrentino (in my opinion the best film maker working these days), there are absolutely no big plot-twists, no innovations in the plot of, for instance, the Great Beauty and still the basic premise is developed brillantly, visually, musically and in the script as well.

Going back to ring theory, and in my humble experience related to art, the key is that every premise, basic or complex, modern or ancient as well, can be art. And every single premise can be shit as well. Art quality is not about great ideas, but about how those ideas are translated and written in a physical medium: film, stone, air. A Plot, as a structure, is not good per se but it is a script what can be either good or bad, because it has elements (lines) that can be evaluated. As someone said in architecture, God is in the details [as well].

So even if it is true, Ring storytelling doesn't mean anything. The fact that

"it's a way of thinking never used in the history of cinema"

So fucking what? That doesn't mean anything!!!! Certainly it isn't key to evaluate the mess the prequels are. How innovative a technique can be not only doesn't have importance, but also is absolutely eclipsed by the cheap way the "great" idea is developed. In fact, if you regarded ring storytelling as a great idea, the fact that the prequels were so bad even diminishes GL as an artist, because as we say in my country, he'd have crashed a Ferrari.

Prequels aren't just something far below the category of film, they're even bad movies in general, and VERY bad Star Wars movies given how they counterdict the great themes the OT, ring cycles or not. The idea is poorly implemented

You can't just promote a cultural work as you would promote your concept-product to the CEO you work at. Anyone who's seen the first MR Bean movie can laugh at it. It's good because no one did it is not an option. Strangely to that people "it's good because no one did it before" is not an option. Things are good globally, or they're not. And there are several parameters in a film besides innovation, and even besides the plot.

Now you may call me elitist, because of all that "everything is art" and "everyone can make art" that's in the air these days in the world, but an artistic expression, not matter how simple the physical result could be, has a huge underlying complexity which, lacking, makes the whole expression fall. At some point in history we started to think the opposition Classical-New; which is a fiction. Actually it's Classical/Vulgar and New/Old. And "new" and "old" both fit the greater categories.

Lucas should have understood that even if it rhymes like poetry, not everything that rhymes reaches to be called poetry, and that was exactly his job if he had that idea.

Cinema, as a form of Art answers both questions "what?" and "how?" but it's normally the "how" question the one that legitimizes the product, otherwise we'd be living in a cinema culture of just stupid plot tw...oh Jesus.

So what are you, a triple agent?

Spielberg laughing at Abrahams way of thinking in Indy 4

 I agree completely.

 Then I'm afraid you're either trolling me, or maybe you didn't understand a word I said.

To be clear:

Palpatine is an average-minded politician profitting the rest of the people in the galaxy behave as idiots.

Padmè is not the protagonist.

And Star Wars is NOT poetry.

Ring Theory is bullshit, it's a balloonic rationalisation of something that's obvious to anyone above 15 years old. The use of Ring Composition doesn't make the movie neither good, or smart, or unique, or memorable whatsoever, it's just VISUAL LANGUAGE ENTROPY, only that with a few footnotes and academic references like the guy who wrote it uses, he can make it seem like something serious or worthy when it's only natural, specially given that 4 of 6 movies analized come from the same f*cking director, who could and would obviously repeat himself.

And even conceding you some truth, even if Palpatine was a genius and padme was the protagonist, the movie is still shit. It's an awful work, which fails to convey the emotions it obviously tries to convey. Anakin has a hanging poster saying "I'm cute, like me", Maul saying "I'm badass, fear me", but no one does, because everything is so underlined in the movie that causes rejection to the premise that the viewer is, indeed, as idiotic as the characters in the screen.

Movies don't need to be explained, they success or fail in conveying an emotion.

This one fails horribly, even if it's the most star wars looking of the prequels.

Wazzles said:

 Also, I can sum up the ring theory in one word: recycling. 

Oh, the ring theory...something I've always wanted to write about but never found time to do it.

First thing I'd like to say is that I completely agree with Ring theory; I totally buy it, and yes, I have no doubt Lucas deliberately put those paralelisms there on purpose.

However, there's a problem with how the theory is presented, and the fascination that derives from it; and I can't help blaming some light-minded mentality on art which supposes that everything new, or everything that has not been done before has an artistic value per se (or in this case, change "before" for "recently" given the historical precedents set for Ring storytelling). This is the flagrant translation to Art of the market-value of innovation.

Innovation, which is changing one's mindset, could be a very good value for science and economy but it's not necessarily for cinema, or drama, or music, or architecture. However it could be, supposing you can actually develop your innovative concept to a point when it paralels the effects and complexity of the previous way of thinking or paradigma.

You can relate this fascination with what's new even to the juvenile praising of plot-twists and the poor JJ Abraham's Mistery Box. There are whole studios (and viewers) that base their enjoyment of a movie (which, given a certain quality, could reach the level of being called a film) solely on the fact of being as ignorant as possible of the story. To these viewers the supposition of knowing the details of the plot would "spoil" the entire spectacle because their highest value is surprise, and because, to them the sense of fun lies in being dissoriented by the sudden rearrangement of plot-facts and questions instead of the traditional (+2000 years of history of art) extasis produced by overwhelming knowledge.

Traditional storytelling presents you a trouble, and, if the resource is used at all, Deus ex Machina helps you suddenly solve the puzzle thus generating pleasure by knowledge; even ESB works this way and even today Nolan is the Master of DeM IMHO (used this way). Nowadays is the other way round, DeM only helps bring more questions, and it gives pleasure by not knowing.

This is a different paradigma, and I'm not saying I'm against it because cinema has proven to produce great films using this plot-structure. On the other hand, mankind has proven to produce great art along history not using surprise as a value element at all. Take Aedipus and you know exactly how it is going to end, and it doesn't diminish it as a drama, and there are lots of good greek tragedies, and bad ones as well. Or take Les Miserables. Or even take any movie of Paolo Sorrentino (in my opinion the best film maker working these days); take for instance The Great Beauty: there are absolutely no big plot-twists, no innovations whatsoever and still the basic premise is developed brillantly, visually, musically and in the script as well; that movie in particular doesn't even have a plot other than presenting creatively the contradictions of life itself.

Going back to ring theory, in my humble experience related to art, the key is that every premise, basic or complex, modern or ancient, can be art. And the risk is that every single premise can be shit as well. Art quality is not about great ideas, but about how those ideas are translated and written in the physical medium the art uses: film for cinema, stone for sculpture, air for music, and space for architecture. A Plot, as a structure, is not good per se; it is a script what can be either good or bad because it has elements (lines) that can be evaluated. As someone said in architecture, God is in the details [as well].

So even if it is true and used in Star Wars, Ring storytelling doesn't mean anything. The fact that

"it's a way of thinking never used in the history of cinema"

Doesn't mean anything!!!! Certainly it doesn't mean that the prequels are "the work of a genius" and mostly certainly it isn't key to evaluate the mess the prequels are. How innovative a technique can be not only doesn't have relevance, but also is a fact that is absolutely eclipsed by the cheap way the "great" idea is developed. In fact, if you regarded ring storytelling as a great idea, the fact that the prequels were so bad even diminishes GL as an artist, because as we say in my country, he'd have crashed a Ferrari.

Prequels aren't just something far below the category of film, they're even bad movies in general, and VERY bad Star Wars movies given how they counterdict the great themes the OT, ring cycles or not. The idea is poorly implemented, and thus the opera is worth less.

You can't just promote a cultural work as you would promote your concept-product to the CEO you work for. Anyone who's seen the first MR Bean movie can remember how Whistler's Mother was promoted and laugh at it...and then watch it a second time and cry because, when it comes to cinema (which as an art can reach heights comparable to any other "orthodox" art) that's real and happening.

 Strangely to people from other fields than art, "this is good because no one did it before" is not an option. Things are good globally, or they're not. And there are several parameters to evaluate a film besides innovation, and even besides the script.

Now you may call me elitist, because of all that "everything is art" and "everyone can make art" that's in the air these days in the world, but an artistic expression, no matter how simple the final product/object/performance/opera/work could be, has a huge underlying complexity which, lacking, makes the whole expression fail and crash. At some point in history we started to think the opposition Classical-New; which is a fiction. Actually the couples are Classical/Vulgar and New/Old. And "new" and "old" fit in both greater categories.

Lucas should have understood that even if it rhymes like poetry, not everything that rhymes reaches to be called poetry, and to make that happen was exactly his job if he had that idea.

Art is all about conveying in a third person a definite emotion.

Cinema, as a form of Art answers both questions "what?" and "how?" but it's normally the "how" question the one that legitimizes the product, otherwise we'd be living in a cinema culture of just stupid plot tw...oh Jesus.

So what are you, a triple agent?

Spielberg laughing at Abrahams way of thinking in Indy 4

Yes, but it's a stereotypical personality, the un-stable histrionic maniac with superpowers. and I'm 100% it's done like that because "it looks cool"

If I had superpowers, I wouldn't be so emotional or theatrical in my behaviour...mainly because almost nothing could interfere with me, isn't it logical?

Well, it's a shame mainly because JJ Abrahams is exactly the kind of person you would expect not to be able to complete a phrase without using either "cool", "great", "badass" or "epic".

All the blockbuster american cinema has become that, some years ago.

You just need to see how Kylo Ren stomps his feet in the ground when he activates his sabre in TFA's first teaser; it just screams "whooaaaa, EPIC", and compare it with how matter-of-fact Vader is in everything he does, with a very defined characteristic of coldness, tranquility, lack of enthusiasm and even elegance.

They should use him while he's young and available, and fully wrap up the Clone Wars - Anakin story. Distancing from it just to show up what they think of the PT these days is an error by Disney, just as it was an error by Lucas not to shoot the ST while Hammil, Ford and Fisher were young (if in the mind of George, the trio was to be young in the ST)

I don't find this technological achievement ethically questionable (given a certain legal framing); I don't even support the fact that heirs/estates hold rights for someone's face, unless the data would be used to denigrate the person who passed away.

From a certain point of view, history won't remember who was the model for MichellAngelo's David, or la Pietà, and those people didn't have any remuneration for it, yet art was preserved.

But aside from this, I remember having read that they're trying to develop new technology on this subject (God knows what would that be)...and if it was related to motion capture, we could probably have someone in the role of Peter Cushing, in the role of Tarkin. So it doesn't necessarily mean fuck performance. We could have very strange situations such as Andy Serkis, as P. Cushing.