chyron8472

Where I’m at with it is this:

Do you want to like the film? Yes or No?

Constantly picking it apart for why it’s stupid, unoriginal, inferior, or whatever else doesn’t enhance the viewing experience. It doesn’t increase my liking for it nor the franchise. I would rather find reasons to enjoy it, and focus on them; and if I don’t enjoy it, I’d rather just move along as though these aren’t the droids I’m looking for and find something else to enjoy instead.

Sure, there are criticisms to be made, but once the horse is dead there is no reason to keep beating it.

When I talk to my 14yo nephew about the Star Wars movies, he’s not really that big a fan and has a hard time remembering which Episode number goes by which subtitle. At one point, he asked me why I don’t just call them by their episode numbers, and I said that it wasn’t until the prequels came out that their numbers even were on the box or that Star Wars was marketed as A New Hope.

Then I showed him images of OT posters and VHS boxes to prove my point.

The Sound of Music (1965).

Really good film. 8.5/10

NeverarGreat said:

“we’re well past the fairy-tale idea that in this world there is good and there is evil just because. Movie villains that are simply cackling wrongdoers in this day and age register as false.”

I disagree with both of these points.

Maybe this is one reason why people have so much of a problem with paltry and secondhand Snoke character elements lifted from the Emperor - the Emperor was a villain from a more morally polarized age.

I would have thought people had a problem with Snoke being Emperor2.0 because it’s unoriginal and/or so quickly undoes what the Rebels were fighting for.

Gaffer Tape said:

Oh, good grief!

What?

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

Question: is Rian pronounced rIan or rEEan?

I thought it was pronounced the same as “Ryan”, which is (ususally) the former.

Like Ryan, or like Brian without the B.

Okay. Then David Stewart was pronouncing it wrong. That’s why I asked.

Thanks.

If one were to explore the argument that Rey is instantly OP, yet untrained, and in being so poops on the concepts that Yoda was trying to teach Luke in ESB, I can see that. But I can also see a “The Force works in mysterious ways” argument. For myself, it doesn’t bother me for her to be untrained. It’s odd, certainly, but I wouldn’t call it “ruinous to the concept of The Force” or what have you.

Really, I would just like to know why she is so powerful, and hope it is explored or explained at some point.

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Getting back to my original point, but without the deviation into sexism…

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

You have to look at the film holistically to understand.

To understand what? That the plot and character developments didn’t match percieved expectations?

Just because it doesn’t, that doesn’t make it bad nor does it mean hardcore Star Wars fans were intentionally jerked around.

Of course not, that would be silly. If I’m not explaining it well check out the David Stewart videos.

I’m just starting to watch his TLJ analysis, and he immediately accuses TLJ and Rian Johnson of deliberately attacking expectations of the fans.

I do not agree with that. Maybe if the problem is it doesn’t meet one’s expectations, then the solution should be to curb one’s expectations. David Stewart says that because it is Episode 8, that expectations are inherent and necessary, and that TLJ is therefore hate mail for those expectations.

I could not disagree more. And at the end of the day, we only have control over our own responses to things. If you want to like it, it does actually fit, and in a way that doesn’t make everything else suck. It doesn’t have to be a meta-commentary if you don’t make it a meta-commentary. Rian is not telling OUT purists to go f*ck themselves. If one wants to make it about that, then they’re going to, I guess. But it doesn’t have to be about that, and Rian didn’t say that it was.

If people want to enjoy it for the film that it is, and let Star Wars be Star Wars, in and of itself and its own universe, without injecting real world socio-culturally-political nonsense into it, then they can. And I would say, they should.

If there is any suggestion of sexism on my part, you are gravely mistaken.

No, not yours. Mine. I was getting back to arguing against what David Stewart said and omitted the part that derailed conversation from it. I was omitting reference to (what I believe to be) his sexism, not yours.

Question: is Rian pronounced rIan or rEEan?

I thought it was pronounced the same as “Ryan”, which is (ususally) the former.

Getting back to my original point, but without the deviation into sexism…

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

You have to look at the film holistically to understand.

To understand what? That the plot and character developments didn’t match percieved expectations?

Just because it doesn’t, that doesn’t make it bad nor does it mean hardcore Star Wars fans were intentionally jerked around.

Of course not, that would be silly. If I’m not explaining it well check out the David Stewart videos.

I’m just starting to watch [David Stewart’s] TLJ analysis, and he immediately accuses TLJ and Rian Johnson of deliberately attacking expectations of the fans.

I do not agree with that. Maybe if the problem is it doesn’t meet one’s expectations, then the solution should be to curb one’s expectations. David Stewart says that because it is Episode 8, that expectations are inherent and necessary, and that TLJ is therefore hate mail for those expectations.

I could not disagree more. And at the end of the day, we only have control over our own responses to things. If you want to like it, it does actually fit, and in a way that doesn’t make everything else suck. It doesn’t have to be a meta-commentary if you don’t make it a meta-commentary. Rian is not telling OUT purists to go f*ck themselves. If one wants to make it about that, then they’re going to, I guess. But it doesn’t have to be about that, and Rian didn’t say that it was.

If people want to enjoy it for the film that it is, and let Star Wars be Star Wars, in and of itself and its own universe, without injecting real world socio-culturally-political nonsense into it, then they can. And I would say, they should.

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

You see how a single term shuts down your ability to appreciate what he’s saying?

To some extent we do make our own reality, which I think is well illustrated by your reaction to what is a term of literary criticism.

But it is not a term of literary criticism. It’s a way to basically say that OP women are reverse-sexist or have a misandrist agenda or whatever. Let Rey be Rey. If she’s OP for inexplicable reasons, explore that concept, but don’t attach the fact that she’s female to it. Her being female has nothing at all to do with anything, but is at the very core of where the term “Mary Sue” comes from.

The term “Mary Sue” came from the work of a female author who created a character with that name to criticize that archetype. You’re objecting to how you perceive some people seem to mis/use the term.

The argument about the definition of Mary Sue has already taken place in this thread, and not by me. My understanding is the consenus is it is a derogatory term against women, and that the gender-swapped term Gary Stu is just a furtherance of that same derogate against women, since one doesn’t use the term Gary Stu without the context of a Mary Sue. The term is part and parcel tied to the gender-related implication.

DrDre said:

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

You have to look at the film holistically to understand.

To understand what? That the plot and character developments didn’t match percieved expectations?

Just because it doesn’t, that doesn’t make it bad nor does it mean hardcore Star Wars fans were intentionally jerked around.

Of course not, that would be silly. If I’m not explaining it well check out the David Stewart videos. Maybe you just won’t see it. And that’s far less interesting than you understanding but disagreeing with the argument.

Almost every twist is a variation on an OT story thread, as if RJ wanted to avoid being accused of rehashing the OT by doing the opposite.

And, you know, that’s what I really liked about it.

Mrebo said:

You see how a single term shuts down your ability to appreciate what he’s saying?

To some extent we do make our own reality, which I think is well illustrated by your reaction to what is a term of literary criticism.

But it is not a term of literary criticism. It’s a way to basically say that OP women are reverse-sexist or have a misandrist agenda or whatever. Let Rey be Rey. If she’s OP for inexplicable reasons, explore that concept, but don’t attach the fact that she’s female to it. Her being female has nothing at all to do with anything, but is at the very core of where the term “Mary Sue” comes from.

Calling her a Mary Sue disparages the character in a way that can not be argued against, because it is a sexist argument that combats mature, reasoned discourse.

Shopping Maul said:

I can picture is a cabal of nerds sitting around the writers’ table saying […] “maybe Rey could have heat-vision this time”.

I still don’t get it. What about this movie makes it so like a Marvel superhero film? I keep seeing this, but what the heck are people talking about?

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

You have to look at the film holistically to understand.

To understand what? That the plot and character developments didn’t match percieved expectations?

Just because it doesn’t, that doesn’t make it bad nor does it mean hardcore Star Wars fans were intentionally jerked around.

Of course not, that would be silly. If I’m not explaining it well check out the David Stewart videos.

I’m just starting to watch his TLJ analysis, and he immediately accuses TLJ and Rian Johnson of deliberately attacking expectations of the fans.

I do not agree with that. Maybe if the problem is it doesn’t meet one’s expectations, then the solution should be to curb one’s expectations. David Stewart says that because it is Episode 8, that expectations are inherent and necessary, and that TLJ is therefore hate mail for those expectations.

I could not disagree more. And at the end of the day, we only have control over our own responses to things. If you want to like it, you might need to adjust your thinking to…

[mid-thought-JEDIT] …I’m still listening to the video while I type this and David Stewart just called Rey a Mary Sue (7:35).
Nope. Stop the video. Not listening to him anymore. Ever. She might unexpectedly, inexplicably be OP, but that doesn’t make her a Mary Sue.[/JEDIT]

…Where was I? Oh yeah. At the end of the day, we only have control over our own responses to things. If you want to like it, it does actually fit, and in a way that doesn’t make everything else suck. It doesn’t have to be a meta-commentary if you don’t make it a meta-commentary. Rian is not telling OUT purists to go f*ck themselves. If one wants to make it about that, then they’re going to, I guess. But it doesn’t have to be about that, and Rian didn’t say that it was.

If people want to enjoy it for the film that it is, and let Star Wars be Star Wars, in and of itself and its own universe, without injecting real world socio-culturally-political nonsense into it, then they can. And I would say, they should.

Mrebo said:

It’s been said many times, many ways.

Merry Christmas, to you.

Mrebo said:

You have to look at the film holistically to understand.

To understand what? That the plot and character developments didn’t match percieved expectations? Just because it doesn’t, that doesn’t make it bad nor does it mean hardcore Star Wars fans were intentionally jerked around.

I think what people ought to do, if they don’t like the film but want to, is to drop their expectations and go back in with an open mind. It doesn’t have to match what we expected for it; but if you do try to match it with the rest of the series, it does actually fit—just not in the way you thought it would. It casts the rest of the series in a different light, yes, but it doesn’t abandon it or ruin it.

That is, if people want to like it, they can adjust themselves to like it and to fit it without it ruining the OT. If they don’t want to like it, which many people (not saying yourself, mind you) are happy to just hear themselves complain, then so be it.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

If part of these movies is about jerking fans around (which people on both sides seem to agree on)

What makes you think that’s true at all?

It is in the sense that there are plot twists…

• You think Snoke is going to be the next Palpatine (ie. big bad who dies at the end of the third film), but he’s not.
• You think Luke is going to mentor Rey but he doesn’t.
• You think Leia is dead but she’s not.
• You think someone or something on the Light Side is connecting Rey and Ren, but it’s Snoke, but it’s again not really.
• You think Finn is going to destroy the tracker but he doesn’t and gets caught. You think there’s no way out except then BB-8 shows up in a chicken walker after you forgot he was even there.
• You think Poe is going to save the cruiser but he doesn’t.
• You think it’s the Vice Admiral coming through the door but it isn’t.
• You think Luke is on the planet fighting Ren but he’s not.
• You think Ren is going to kill Rey but he doesn’t—he does exactly what Vader wanted to do in ESB but couldn’t.

BUT that is to say only if the use of the phrase “jerking fans around” means unexpected twists for the sake of interesting storytelling, rather than it being a nicer way of saying “dicking fans over.” If it means the latter, then no, there’s no reason to assume that’s true.

CatBus said:

FWIW, I’ve always treated DeEd as “what a respectful Blu-ray transfer would have looked like”, and the various film transfers as “what it actually looked like in theatres” – although obviously a just-struck print would look much cleaner than the prints we’ve been able to find and use. For whatever reason, I still prefer DeEd in the end.

Yeah, I’m not really keen on having a DE that features tons of gate weave, even if the original, release-day theatrical prints had it.

CatBus said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

TV’s Frink said:

joefavs said:

CatBus said:

joefavs said:

Bond films are under “J” for James Bond

I twitched, I’ll admit it.

I’m not happy with it either, but I can’t find an alternative I like. Putting them at the beginning for “007” feels aesthetically off and “B” for Bond isn’t really any different than J.

That doesn’t make sense to me. If someone comes up to me and says they love James movies, I have no idea what they’re talking about.

So if you have Forrest Gump, you put it at ‘G’ for Gump, Forrest?

If the name of the film was James Bond, I’d file it under “J” too (if I filed alphabetically). Similarly, if they were all “James Bond and the…” a la Harry Potter. But it’s the name of a central character in a series of films that don’t have that character’s name in the film titles, so it’s lastname, firstname. Forrest Gump goes under “F”.

This goes back to my record store days. Jethro Tull and Bob Dylan are both fictional names. But Jethro Tull goes under “J” and Bob Dylan goes under “D” because Bob Dylan is a pseudonym for a particular person, whereas Jethro Tull is a name for the entire band.

You’re overthinking it. Like, a lot.

Sorry, I was paid for doing this some time ago. Not, you know, a lot… but paid nonetheless. The OCD sticks.

We were open til midnight. Some guy came in and spent a lot of time by our cassettes. We didn’t take much notice because cassettes were this weird pre-CD holdover without the hipster cred of the vinyl, off in a corner. By the time we went to check on him, we discovered that he had reorganized our cassette section by the color of the spine.

Oh yeah, and Courtney Love came in one time. That was awkward.

If I had enough movies and time, I’d rearrange my collection to make a gradient, take a picture, and then put it all back.

It was very pretty, and well-executed.

We had strong reason to believe drugs were involved, needless to say.

So how long did it take to put it all back?

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

TV’s Frink said:

joefavs said:

CatBus said:

joefavs said:

Bond films are under “J” for James Bond

I twitched, I’ll admit it.

I’m not happy with it either, but I can’t find an alternative I like. Putting them at the beginning for “007” feels aesthetically off and “B” for Bond isn’t really any different than J.

That doesn’t make sense to me. If someone comes up to me and says they love James movies, I have no idea what they’re talking about.

So if you have Forrest Gump, you put it at ‘G’ for Gump, Forrest?

If the name of the film was James Bond, I’d file it under “J” too (if I filed alphabetically). Similarly, if they were all “James Bond and the…” a la Harry Potter. But it’s the name of a central character in a series of films that don’t have that character’s name in the film titles, so it’s lastname, firstname. Forrest Gump goes under “F”.

This goes back to my record store days. Jethro Tull and Bob Dylan are both fictional names. But Jethro Tull goes under “J” and Bob Dylan goes under “D” because Bob Dylan is a pseudonym for a particular person, whereas Jethro Tull is a name for the entire band.

You’re overthinking it. Like, a lot.

Because?

ray_afraid said:

CatBus said:

Bob Dylan goes under “D”

No.

Yes.

CatBus said:

joefavs said:

Bond films are under “J” for James Bond

Come on, man, trigger warning please.

I file Bond films under “0” for 007. I also sort series titles in production order, except Star Wars which is sorted chronologically.

I do not store my Star Wars 1-6 bluray set with my other films, though. God knows where they even are because I don’t really care. I bought them for obtaining fan edits, only. I do keep the OT/PT DVDs because the cases are standard (whereas the bluray box set is not) and the OT has the GOUT.

I would keep physical copies of Harmy’s, Q2’s, and Hal’s projects, but I kept giving those away to people as gifts (to my dad, my sister, my cousin, and Sam Healey of The Dice Tower boardgame reviews) and haven’t bothered making replacement copies for myself since the last set.

TV’s Frink said:

But if you prioritize realistic character flaws

Like Padme going from being creeped out by Anaking to immediately falling in love?
Like Anakin going from being a Jedi to immediately betraying the galaxy on some bizarre hope that the Dark Side can save his wife, then immediately turning and asking what he’s done, then immediately going full evil two seconds later?
Like the Jedi all being idiots and having no clue about Palpatine being Sidious?

The most powerful interesting character from ESB reduced to a short green videogame blur! >

I find the PT edits I enjoy remove many (most?) of these problems. They’re not as good as the ST or RO, certainly, but also not as irretrievably unwatchable as you yourself claim they are.