I’m sorry I’m not accepting any donations right now. Once I can open up a new project please rest assured I’ll get back to everyone who is interested in donating towards a Disney scan.
Monsieur Hulot said:
Out of curiosity did you ever receive the rescans?
Yes, the film is scanned.
Every Fantasia project seems to die hope this one come to fruition.
Patience is the key.
We have scans from two prints, and I’m still waiting on a rescan of one reel. Until that happens that reel won’t match the quality of the rest of the scan.
As others have mentioned there are all kinds of reasons for scanning delays. Covid has probably caused all kinds of logistical issues as well with many of them - whether that’s in sourcing cleaning fluid, getting scanning equipment maintained or repaired (that’s very specialised and usually the “mechanics”/maintenance technician need to travel internationally or from another part of the same country to do that), getting spare parts manufactured, and so on. It’s no different to any other workshop equipment - like say a CNC machine in a joinery, if it breaks down and needs maintenance you can sometimes have to wait weeks or months to get a technician out depending on where you’re located, how many technicians there are, how busy they are, etc. Getting affordable time with a good scanner doesn’t just happen by magic.
Another ‘took the money and ran’ is more than likely. Love to be proven wrong, but it’s all too easy, which is a real shame.
I haven’t taken any of your money brad86, so you’re in no position to feel ripped off. It’ll be done when it’s done.
I’m sorry to hear about the Demolition Man print, unfortunately shit happens. You’re always best to check with people involved in scanning privately if they know who a seller is and have any experience - some collectors are really fantastic and others are not so much.
Broom Kid said:
Star Wars isn’t a genre. I haven’t missed your point, I think maybe you’re not grasping the terms you’re trying to use to arrive at the definitions that aren’t quite right. And your description of genre honestly doesn’t have much to do with filmmaking techniques anyway, because now you’re talking about character types and characterization tropes.
It’s made in a combination of genres, that’s the point. Lucas calls it “space opera”. Fantasy-adventure-drama is probably a lot more accurate than his description. In adventure films the protagonist goes on a quest, in action films they face a clear enemy usually in the name of justice or survival. There’s overlap of course, but the point of the quest in the adventure film (often the MacGuffin is a shared gaol between the protagonist and the antagonist rather than them having opposite goals) is to both propel the story and lead the protagonist (or antagonist) on a character arc, where they might learn new things, go on a journey of self-discover, be exposed to a foreign environment, that kind of thing.
One of the problems with Phantom Menace is that it’s not clear who is the main character. Do you know who it is?
Broom Kid said:
Star Wars was never a “niche” genre. It’s not a genre unto itself (despite various people’s attempts to make it as such) either. And if you see a similarity between superheroes and fantasy-based mythologies, it’s because they both draw from the same ideas. Jedi are, more or less, superheroes.
With respect you’ve missed my point. Star Wars is a “niche genre” because of how Lucas combined other genres to make the movie. There’s a difference between superhero/villains who cannot be defeated except by other superhero/villains, and the much more relatable mortal superhero/villains who’s powers don’t make them impossible to defeat. Watto easily defeats Qui-Gon’s attempt at force-influencing him. Admiral Motti’s line to Vader: “Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerer’s ways”. Contrast that with Superman II - General Zod can only be defeated by Superman because he is too powerful. That trope is used so often in superhero movies, and pre-dates the modern superhero genre by quite a bit as you see with that example, it’s used because it’s very convenient way to explain away why the military, police, or other authorities can’t oppose the super-villain.
You’re arguing it has to look and feel like it did in 1977 and that’s death.
That’s not my argument - my argument is that the sequels have been made in a fundamentally different style and genre. One that lots of people enjoy, but which is not for me.
The camera does not shake in that shot. I’m losing my mind. There is a difference between a non-static camera in shaky cam.
Shaky-cam is just one part of the overall filming style that JJ goes for.
More to the point, the sequel trilogy is standard Hollwood style, that’s a big part of the problem for me. Disney turned down making the original Star Wars movie because it was sci-fi and Hollwood didn’t like sci-fi, horror, or “blockbusters” in the 70’s. Lucas didn’t want to make his movie in the standard Hollywood style. Within the standard Hollywood formula you only hire the top 10% of attractive actors, your most attractive actor is always the leading man (by that formula Harrison Ford should be the leading man), no children or animals, and so on. The “Hollywood universe” often feels completely unreal.
Disney took Lucasfilm, and instead of respecting the flexible ambitious nature of the film-making that made Star Wars and Indiana Jones special and unique, decided to make them using the standard Hollywood conventions and the using the contemporary “superhero genre” of the 00’s-10’s (not to be confused with the older superhero genre of the 70’s-90’s). The visual style of Lucas’ movies was to make it grounded in reality so it felt real and relatable. Whereas the sequels have been made in the style of Marvel or Transformers and other comic-book/superhero movies that don’t appeal to me. Those movies have their fans, one of my friends his favourite movie of all time is one of those movies - I can’t even remember which movie it is because they’re all the same to me, I did watch it but I found it forgettable. Another movie in this genre I saw was Guardians of the Galaxy - I didn’t want to see it, but a friend and I were going to see another movie and it was completely sold-out at the cinema, he wanted to see Guardians (and he just loves those kind of movies) so we saw it, there are lots of people that love that kind of aerial action and adventure, but I really don’t remember much of it at all because for me it was a forgettable face-paced meaningless action ride. Jodie Foster might go a bit far in my opinion, but I agree with her frustration - this kind of “superhero genre” content has become so dominant that it has swallowed-up entire franchises.
An entire generation has grown up with these new movies, and for them that’s what Star Wars is now. Its been moved out of its own niche genre that Lucas created and into the dominant mainstream “superhero” genre. This has had the effect of making force-users superhumans, instead of regular people. Palpatine surviving Return of the Jedi makes him superhuman. Rey’s powers go well beyond Luke’s and those displayed in the OT and PT where the characters require deep concentration to move objects with the force, and even struggle to do so. In the superhero genre the only people who can oppose a superhuman is another superhuman, this is why in ROS it is Rey and Kylo who fight against Palpatine. In TLJ Snoke moves Rey around with the power of the force - that was never possible in the Lucas-saga films - once you allow a force user to simply levitate other people rendering them completely powerless like that the only people that can fight back are other equally-strong force-users. Whereas in the Lucas saga films the resistance is powerful in itself, they’re able to oppose the galactic empire effectively, and in fact ultimately succeed where the Jedi failed. Luke’s ethical dilemma in TLJ is taken right out of the superhero genre’s songbook - it’s one of the most common story tropes “with great power comes great responsibility” - it’s the force-users that caused all the galaxy-wide problems, the sooner they’re gone the better for humanity.
I just think you fundamentally have a different definition of the term. If you asked me I would say there’s only a couple shots that are “shaky,” and they’re in the cell block hallway.
Yes I think so let’s get the basics right so we’re on the same page. Are you happy to accept the Wikipedia definition?
Honestly, shaky cam on its own is not the problem. It is that it’s over-used and combined with other filming techniques that consistently move the camera unnecessarily. Like the shot that Finn takes of his helmet. To me it looks awful. If the camera was pulled back and steady it would look fine.
You must have a very liberal definition of shaky cam then. Do you think there’s any shaky cam in these scenes?
Yes the Tie Fighter attack has more, but they both have it. I’d say both are good examples of acceptable levels, there’s lots of shots in the Tie fighter scene where the camera is completely stationary to counter-balance that effect, whereas JJ barely ever allows the camera to be stationary.
I mentioned that one before. It’s one of the only moments in the entire film when the camera does that. The fact that that’s your only example does not help your case.
It’s not the camera at all, it’s intentional. This is what it would look like if stabilised:
No, the camera is shaking in that scene because it is a sort of ‘action’ scene, where they’re trying to repair the Falcon before the toxic fumes kill them. It’s one of only two dialogue scenes in the entire film with “shaky cam.”
There’s shaky cam when Finn takes off his helmet, basically any shot that has an extreme-close up like that has some level of it or some other annoying camera technique (lots of zooming, lots of focus-shifting), when they get to the bar that entire scene is filmed like it’s hand-held.
And the action scenes don’t have shaky cam either.
There’s what? Two, three shots total in this scene that if you squint you could call almost shaky cam? And I just picked a random scene.
Much of that shot and for that matter the movie feels like it’s framed for 1.85:1 not Scope (2.35:1) - i.e. the camera feels like it’s too close. Honestly there’s a ton of shaky-cam in that scene, I don’t know how you could possibly count two or three shots only. It’s not just shaky-cam, it’s a combination of things.
Hilarious honestly that you’re still holding onto this. Anyway, I’ve said what I’ve said about the “shaky cam.” It’s practically nonexistent in his Star Wars films. Complain away about the other tenets of his style.
There is no reason to be disrespectful. Are you saying you don’t think this shot is shaky-cam?
There’s a reason why I believe JJ’s shaking the camera like that in non-action shots, and that’s to make the shaky-cam less jarring when we come to the actual action sequences.
I’ve started a new topic to discuss shaky-cam. I haven’t seen the Bourne movies (I’ve seen clips of the action and it looks awful so I’ve never been motivated to watch one), most films which are heavy with shaky-cam I’ve never seen.
This thread likely contains spoliers for The Rise Of Skywalker - if you don’t wish to be spoiled… do not read the rest of this thread.
I’m starting a new topic so this can be discussed more appropriately.
Background info: I wish I had read this before I saw TFA, because I had not seen a JJ film since Mission Impossible III and I was totally unprepared for his style. I can’t stand his style - it’s not any one factor alone, but the combination of the filming techniques that he employs - notably shaky-cam, snap-zoom, framing decisions, lighting decisions, excessive very fast edits, focus-shift, constantly moving the camera around, and so on.
Some people are saying there isn’t much shaky-cam in TFA - well I don’t know by what yard stick you’re measuring with, but compared to 80’s and 90’s action classics like Terminator II there’s an awful lot. And it’s not only in action shots, here’s an example of shaky cam in a stationary shot: https://imgur.com/xrULFXV. And an example scene from ROS that has a ton of shaky-cam in it: https://youtu.be/693qGarrgbw?t=15
So what is shaky cam? According to Wikipedia, it’s a cinematographic technique where stable-image techniques are purposely dispensed with. It is often “hand held” or has the appearance of hand-held.
Do people like it?
There are a range of individual responses to the technique. I think that most people do not like it but will tolerate it, or at least tolerate it to a certain level. I tolerate it too, but TFA was way too much for me. Its effect is also very different in the cinema compared to the small screen at home. It can make some people feel dizzy or sick - that doesn’t happen with me, my eyes glaze over and I stop trying to follow the action. Some people do like it as well, as is the case with the author of the Verge article which was written before TFA even came out.
Why is it used?
According to the discussion on cinematograpy.com, one reason it is used is as a compromise. Sometimes there is not enough time to film action sequences, or the action just doesn’t look right so the director will shake the camera. In JJ’s case, as with the example I’ve posted, he uses it even outside of action scenes - for him it’s an artistic choice, rather than done out of necessity. It’s also become more common and accepted in Hollywood action films over the past 15 years. In my opinion this kind of filming represents over-use of the technique, when the camera is pulled in too close and half of the action is out of frame, the audience can’t follow it even if they want to.
Broom Kid said:
“Shaky cam” is just a colloquial synonym for “hand-held photography.”
Nobody’s actually shaking the camera, it’s just not stabilized on a dolly or tripod or steadicam machine.
It’s not in this movie, OR in The Force Awakens very much.
I obviously can’t speak for ROS as I haven’t seen it, but Force Awakens was shaky-cam from start to finish. It wasn’t just in the action shots - yes there was steady-cam of course, but there’s many scenes where there’s shaky-cam just for the sake of it for example when Finn and Rey are on the Millenium Falcon It’s not “hand held” it can look like it, but it’s a stylistic choice. If you like it that’s fine, some people like it, and some people like me can’t stand it being over-used. Here’s an example from Force Awakens, and this isn’t even an action scene: https://i.imgur.com/xrULFXV.mp4. Completely unnecessary, it’s there by the director’s choice.
There’s a good discussion on it on the cinematography.com forum, this I think is very very true: “Please, please, please, tell those who think that the audience enjoys it that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. At best, they tolerate it. At worst, they despise it.” And here is what a director said:
"I’m finishing a movie right now with a domestic fight scene that I had to shoot in this style. I wanted so bad to stage the whole thing in one single, static, wide shot similar to the domestic fight scene in Raging Bull, but it was beyond my abilities to make it authentic. I just couldn’t do it and believe me I tried. So, the last minute decision was to shoot in the Borne style and make it in editing.
"The scene came out okay, but I can’t help but think how much better it would have been if I could have staged it properly in a static wide shot.
"Point is, we do what we feel we have to in order to make it work. The shaky cam scene is one of many, many, many compromises I made on this movie. When you’re in charge of a project, you do whatever it takes to make it the best it can be and obviously there are plenty of directors out there that feel the shaky cam is what works best for their project. If you don’t like it, then get out there and show us how it’s done. 😉"
That is very different to JJ’s approach, he uses the style for the whole movie. But it’s not just shaky-cam that I don’t like about JJ’s style, it’s the culmination of filming and editing techniques - snap-zoom, focus shifting, lighting decisions, having the camera too close to the action all the time, huge number of edits/shots in single scenes, etc.
This. Shaky cam doesn’t mean moving camera. It’s means handheld photography. And it’s almost entirely absent in the film. In that clip, not a single live action shot is handheld.
To sit there and say that there’s no shaky-cam is disrespectful. You don’t notice it, clearly, that’s fine. But you don’t get to make up your own definition so you can dismiss it - shaky cam is any shot where the camera moves unnecessarily in more than one direction. As Wikipedia puts it shaky cam is: “a cinematographic technique where stable-image techniques are purposely dispensed with”. It’s fine when it’s used in moderation, but JJ’s style has no moderation at all.
I know what shaky cam is and I definitely didn’t say it wasn’t there, I was meaning that I had no clue what people were talking about cause my mind just doesn’t register it I guess, then I watched the clip again and saw it, but it seemed too small for me to understand why some people would refuse to see an entire movie solely based on that.
Exactly right, you’ve hit the nail on the head, you don’t notice it. That’s perfectly fine. Some people don’t notice it, it doesn’t distract them - heck directors like JJ wouldn’t use it if they thought they would. Some people love the style.
Also I apologise for suggesting you said there wasn’t shaky-cam there, it was this comment that set me off:
Yeah I mean, there’s basically no shaky cam in that clip.
Lesser I think your phrasing is a little off “refuse to see an entire movie …” I don’t see most motives that come out. Some don’t interest me in the slightest. Sometimes I’ve seen movies because I’ve gone with someone who wanted to see a particular film I never would have chosen to watch. I’m certainly not “refusing” to see it - if someone wanted me to see it with them I would, even if I have to pay twice as much to see it in their chosen cinema.
However in to answer you underlying question, yes I hate the style and I wish I knew about JJ’s style before going to see TFA because I was completely unprepared. It’s not just in action sequences, it’s in the whole TFA, which I don’t remember watching in full a second time. I am a little offended by your comment, I don’t begrudge anyone for enjoying it, all the better to you if you do. But it’s not for me, I know that for myself. It’s a 3D movie and not even being shown here in 3D which I see as pointless - not just because I like 3D, but all the framing decisions that are done for 3D are irrelevant to 2D, most of the time they don’t translate well. There’s no way I can see this movie here right now and appreciate the director’s intent, unfortunately.
I also have no clue what people are talking about with the shaky cam. In the Poe/Finn Falcon clip that was released people were saying the shaky cam was god awful but I barely noticed until I saw a million posts complaining about JJ’s style, and even now it doesn’t bother me whatsoever.
If you like shaky-cam that’s fine, but don’t say it isn’t there because it is. Shaky-cam is any shot that moves in more than one direction, unnecessarily, where it isn’t a tracking shot. For example a shot that moves left, then up, then right. It can be a shot that is vibrating, but it doesn’t have to be, it can also be anything that looks like unstable hand-held style shots. See this video for a comparison between shaky-cam and steady-cam. Almost the entire clip is shaky cam, this one tracking shot is the sole exception:
That’s a tracking shot. Although it’s not tracking anything, it’s just panning the camera down. Every other shot in that clip, without exception, is shaky cam. Some have more shaking, some have little, but not a single shot is a steady-cam/tracking shot. I respect your opinion to enjoy it, some people prefer it and their opinions are just as valid as mine, but I find it awful. Done in JJ’s style anyway, as I mentioned before it can be used effectively as in the T2 clip.
Broom Kid said:
I think SOMETHING happened either during production, post-production, or even both, because this movie just doesn’t make sense a lot of the time. It’s not just retconning things and moving too fast for its own good (there are not a lot of “moments” in this movie, and it hurts a lot of the emotional punches it’s consistently failing to land), it’s referencing plot points that didn’t happen prior to their referencing, and half the time it’s not finishing off things that they ARE setting up. (What was Finn going to tell Rey? Why was Lando talking to Jannah at the end like we were supposed to insinuate… something? Why is Rey kissing Kylo at all?)
TL;DR: it’s not a saga film, it sets up everything in the First Act and doesn’t rely on the previous two films stories.
Also I understand the refusal to not write Leia out between movies but that would have been preferable to what they did here. By far. She became a literal PROP by the end. And her presence in the scenes she was “active” in was utterly false, no matter how good the CGI lighting and costuming was. There was no feeling that she was acting with anyone, or that anyone was acting with her. There’s good reason for that, of course, and I feel like trying to glide over that unavoidable reason through movie trickery just called more attention to it. The only Leia scene that carried any of the weight it was intended to was Chewie reacting to her death, and even THAT had nothing to do with anything happening in THIS movie, but relied on literal decades of familiarity from previous, much better movies.
I was really worried about that after what they did to Tarkin in RO. 😦 That’s heartbreaking. They were saying very early on after TLJ that she had a very significant part in the story in the ninth film. They actually never had to write her out at all, there was plenty of opportunity to have her die at the end of The Last Jedi with some really simple re-writes and re-shoots after Carrie’s death. But JJ and whoever else was in charge instructed Rian Johnson to leave her alive for the ninth film.
This is the worst film Abrams has directed, and I have a hard time believing it’s turned out this way solely because of bad vision and worse execution. Something about this movie just seems straight up broken in multiple ways, and not in the “What else could I do look what I was left with” sort of way, but in the “I have a release date I have to hit no matter what and this movie doesn’t work the way it is but I’m literally out of time so hopefully we can cobble SOMETHING together.”
JJ came in late after they fired Colin Trevorrow. While we don’t really know why he was fired, Palpatine wasn’t a part of his original script and Ian McDiarmid confirmed he was hired by JJ only a year ago.
It’s never a great idea to make such radical changes mid-production, especially with such a tight deadline.
But considering I think that TFA is the worst of the 8 previous saga films, I don’t have much hope. Still, I love the characters and I hope someone put in enough good stuff that it can be edited into something enjoyable. I don’t know when I am going to see it. Maybe Sunday or maybe later over the holiday break. I was excited to see it, now I’m not. I think I’ll read the spoilers again.
I think TFA is the worst as well, which is why I’m not going to buy a ticket for this one. Why see something you know you won’t like - just wait for Netflix release.
The biggest problem I think was in making the Sequel Trilogy all-out action films. That should have been saved for the stand-alone films, with the Saga films continuing the sci-fi/fantasy “space-opera” themes.
Now we know why a couple of months ago it leaked that they were doing re-shoots following the comments JJ made saying ROS “won’t please everyone”. Possibly those comments were taken out of context, but the leaked reports were that behind the scenes they were not happy with the film as it was, and even some early reviews have said the film felt rushed and unfinished.
My favourite prequel is Phantom Menace, I don’t mind the slapstick childish stuff in it, I don’t hate Jar Jar, I’m happy to share the film with a young child audience. Fundamentally it’s fantasy sci-fi you can’t take it too seriously, it’s meant to be fun not ultra-realistic. I like that there are children in the prequels - that feels more like the real world, unlike the typically Hollywood-universe where society somehow exists without children in it! I’m with Mark Hamill I think it was appalling how people treated Jake Lloyd. Today we would call that cyber-bullying, I’m not sure we knew about cyber-bulling yet in 1999, I digress. Like Mark Hamill says if you want to be angry about Jake Lloyd’s Anakin it’s the director you should be angry at, not the 10-year-old actor. It was a regression, in my humble opinion, to have made the Sequels with no kids in them.
Well… you seem to have missed the point. The Rule of Two is all about there can only be two Sith because they are always trying to kill each other.
I’m aware of the Rule of Two but it is by no means a theme firmly established in the movies. There’s scope to believe whatever you want about the Sith in the George Lucas saga. I don’t think it’s any great “rule”, maybe it is, but I see it as Palpatine’s lust for the power of the force.
For Palpatine it really becomes the rule of three because he has an apprentice, but he always has backups floating around in case his apprentice gets too powerful and might kill him.
I think he uses other people, we see this in Attack of the Clones where he uses and betrays Count Dooku. There’s scope to believe what you want - perhaps its self-preservation because it’s the Sith way for the apprentice to kill his master. In fact Dooku has already betrayed Palpatine at this point, because he ratted him out to Obi-Wan when he tells him “the Republic is now under the control of a Dark Lord of the Sith … hundreds of senators are under the influence of a Sith Lord called Darth Sidious.” He couldn’t have been more specific than that, but Obi-Wan didn’t believe him. On the other hand is that Palpatine has no loyalty whatsoever to Dooku and is interested in replacing him with Anakin - perhaps Dooku has sensed this and is acting out of his own self-interest/preservation. There’s no one opinion on this that is necessarily proven right, as with good storytelling there’s scope for a range of possibilities.
His goal in ROTJ was for Luke to replace Vader. But Vader is plotting the same thing.
Palpatine’s goal is to rule the galaxy as supreme Emperor. Everything else is second to that really. That’s part of his character arc in the prequels - he creates wars by influencing both sides into war (even going so far as to arming both sides so that they can go to war) so that he can get the power to overthrow the Republic and create his own Galactic Empire. He’s motivated by power. Some of the execution of this in the prequels is very clumsy - like when Jar Jar sits in for Padme as a Senator and sponsors his bid for “emergency powers” (it does make sense in that he chases her away with assassins from being able to block him, but what doesn’t make any sense is Jar Jar doing her job, however it could have been done a lot better and certainly without Jar Jar).
One of the reasons he uses Anakin is because he wants to use him to manipulate the Jedi Council - that doesn’t work out exactly as he had planned, but he’s still able to get Anakin to betray the Jedi.
He is either a genius have having multiple options or a genius at finding out how to turn a bad situation to his advantage.
I don’t see it that way that he has “multiple options”, I think he uses “multiple strategies” to achieve his primary goal. So he secretly commissions an army to be built for the Republic. He convinces the Trade Federation to start a war with Naboo. He makes friends with the power-brokers in the Republic’s Senate so he can manipulate votes (a power broker is a politician who controls a large block of votes). He white-ants the incumbent Chancellor by manipulating the very young and impressionable Queen Padme Amidala. I believe this is when he decides to destroy the Sith, so that they will not be able to oppose him, and so that he can pursue his main goal to ultimately become the Supreme Galactic Emperor. So he sends his Sith apprentice to his death. 10 years later Padme doesn’t trust him, obviously, she probably recognises she was manipulated. She blocks his bid for an army, so he chases her away with assassins so he can create an army, create a full-scale war, put the Republic into a catastrophic emergency that justifies granting him “emergency powers”. Once he’s in this position, as Supreme Chancellor of the Republic, he unleashes the clone army he had secretly made which is much stronger than the Trade Federation and their allies, thereby guaranteeing him success in the war (this will make him a war hero to the Republic). This enables him to build more arms for the Republic. Once he has power, and he’s all but won the galactic war, the only ones that can oppose him are the Jedi, so he destroys them. He dismantles the Republic so he can create his ideal Galactic Empire and rule as Emperor, and from there he continues building their arms.
The whole story and character-act is completely coherent and consistent, at least as far as Palpatine is concerned. Dooku gets himself caught up in his plot somehow, and that’s actually quite a good curve-ball to his story (he can’t just rise to power completely unopposed). Where it gets messy is with some of the other characters like Jar Jar and Anakin who behave in ways that achieve Palpatine’s but are not consistent with their own characters.
But Rey is a Skywalker now. That was the message I thought came across at the end. Family is not just blood. Adoption and all that.
But the film undid the last film and made her a Palpatine. Not a Skywalker.
How is this an arc that began in Episode 7?
Oh and I don’t recall seeing that much lens flare at all RU.08. The JJ lens work is pretty subdued.
Lens flare doesn’t bother me, in a 3D movie it is a technique to achieve extra depth. But out of all the cinemas in my area none are showing 3D sessions at all. Which is ridiculous - love or hate 3D, it’s the director’s intention.
Its his “hand held” style I don’t like.
I hope everyone who ragged on George Lucas relentlessly for decades is happy, because this is what happens when a committee of execs frothing over boardroom market research concludes one of cinema’s most important stories. What a joke.
All of the prequels had good receptions when they came out though, that’s the thing. Yes a subset of fans were unhappy from the start, but they were well received overall.
The Saga ended with Return of the Jedi, this is an abomination. Disney Wars is not Star Wars and Rey is not a Skywalker.
No wonder George wasn’t at the premiere, he was probably at home drinking himself stupid.
ROFL! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That sounds like a more sensible way to spend the afternoon.
Also interesting is that none of my local cinemas, and there are 5 different chains showing the movie, not a single one of them has 3D sessions. This website confirms it:
How is it that Disney allows this? For the record I like 3D, and I’d much rather see a 3D movie in 3D.
- The title… the most boring and obvious meaning. Rey who takes the name Skywalker. That’s all. Nothing from Luke, Leia or Anakin.
- Palpatine’s death is just ridiculous. First, in Episode III he didn’t die because of Force lightning being re-directed at him. Why does he die now? Plus, the whole “I’m all the Sith!!!” VS “I’m all the Jedi!!!” is… is… you choose the words.
LMAO, yeah I was thinking much the same thing. Also someone has posted a clip of that scene here. My problem with it is that Palps never cares about another Sith. He kills his master. He sends Darth Maul to his death, falsely promising “they will be no match for you”, do you think he cares? Of course not! He’s testing his apprentice to see if he’s strong enough for him. In the prequels, Palpatine has a really great but subtle character arc. His relationship with Anakin is very different to the one he had with Darth Maul, with Anakin they start out as friends and he uses him to betray the other Jedi. Palpatine single-handedly destroyed the Sith, and then he went about destroying the Jedi as well. So his line, never-mind Rey’s line, just makes no sense he would never say “I’m all the Sith” because he’s claiming to be all of something that he destroyed! He didn’t want to share his power, he didn’t train Darth Vader he just recognised how strong with the Force he was and brought him over to his side. In the original trilogy, Darth Vader is never referred to as a Sith, he’s a Jedi that has been converted to the dark side (for example I’ve always understood “Your sad devotion to that ancient religion …” to be referring to him as a Jedi not Sith).
And as for Rey taking the name Skywalker - makes no sense. It’s Leia Organa (or is it Leia Solo?) who trains her. The only Skywalker she meets is Luke.
- They all said for months that this would have been the ending for the whole saga. But there is NOTHING from the prequels… and I didn’t even hear anything in the soundtrack (not Duel of the Fates, nor Battle of Heroes, nothing).
- The Skywalker family has become a joke. Anakin didn’t do anything. Luke didn’t do anything. Leia didn’t do anything. It was a Palpatine who brought balance.
- So… Palpatine had a son. When? With whom? And why? It sounds like the whole Cursed Child storyline. Both Voldemort and Palpatine are characters who are not supposed to have any offspring, because they both tried to achieve immortality.
Yep I was pretty much thinking the same things. What are they “concluding”? They’re just undoing the ending from one film (Return of the Jedi) and shifting it to this one. One massive retcon to rule them all. Palpy had a deadbeat son, really?
The Last Jedi was coherent, wether people liked it or not. This one was two hours and half of them saying “TLJ didn’t happen. here, look at palpy and be happy”.
Yep it was coherent. I just felt unfinished - there was no lightsaber battle for example.
There are of course things I liked. Lando is so cool. Babu Frik is funny. Williams score has a couple of very good moments. And the whole fleet arrival is just great.
But except for these aspects, I was disappointed.
Last thing: I’m not classified as a prequel hater, sequel hater or original worshipper. I just judge the single movies. My favourite in the saga is Episode V, followed by Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope at second place. Then there’s The Last Jedi.
See that’s interesting. Lots of people think Revenge of the Sith is the best prequel, I’ve changed my mind over that a few times, and I’m back to thinking it’s the worst because of how it betrays all our beloved characters. If Revenge of the Sith had really preceded the Original Trilogy, then fans would have been just as angry about finding Yoda living as a cynical old hermit refusing to train Jedi as when they found Luke living as one in TLJ. There’s literally no reason why Obi-Wan shouldn’t have spent the time between Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars (A New Hope) training new Jedi, and for that matter Yoda as well. These are the last two Jedi in the galaxy, and they just give up and let the Sith Emperor rule?
Warning, deep spoiler:
That looks so awful.
Rey: “I am all the Jedi”???!?!? She’s not even a Jedi how can she claim to be them all? And Palpatine claiming to be “all the Siths” literally makes no sense as in the prequels, and indeed the Original Trilogy as well, he literally destroyed all the Siths. He killed them first, then the Jedi. He showed absolutely no allegiance to the Sith order. In my favourite Prequel he sends an ill-prepared apprentice Darth Maul to his death with the false-promise that he is much stronger “they will be no match” he tells him. That’s one of my favourite things about Phantom Menace is how heartless he is towards Maul, he’s really testing him to see if he’s strong enough to serve him - it’s complete self-interest. Just like how he tests Luke in Return of the Jedi (but he isn’t prepared for Luke).
Oh dear this is what Star Wars has become. Bringing back a beloved villain, just to make a complete mockery out of him.