Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker **Spoilers from post 2076**

beauf

Lithium93_ wrote: »

I mentioned it earlier, but no one seemed to take it.

Would The Rise Of Skywalker have fared better had it not been in the massive shadow of Endgame, even though there was 8 months between both finales?

I watch them, but never been invested into the whole superhero thing.
I don't feel you ever escape that its a comic superhero.
I know a few who watch every marvel story arc, love it all.

I don't see much over lap between the two.

beauf

SMC92Ian wrote: »

I didn't mind Rose. She lost her sister and wanted a purpose. Finn I liked in 1 and kinda in 2, I really liked him in 3 with Po when he wasn't shoouting "REY!" that got old. FFS man she's a Jedi just let her be, she can handle herself.

I don't mind the new characters. They all start out well, decent characters good actors. Their stories though turned to to cartoon. Other than Kylo Ren, I never warmed to him or the actor. But I think his story and script sucked.

beauf

Lithium93_ wrote: »

I love both Star Wars and the Marvel stuff, but in terms of going back and re-watching again and again, Endgame doesn't waste a moment of it's run time, and there's a lot packed into it.

I've only watched about 70% of the marvel stuff. My fav would be Guardians of the Galaxy, I guess i prefer the ScFi side of it.

SMC92Ian

beauf wrote: »

I don't mind the new characters. They all start out well, decent characters good actors. Their stories though turned to to cartoon. Other than Kylo Ren, I never warmed to him or the actor. But I think his story and script sucked.

I was the opposite with Kylo, never liked him in TFA until he killed Han and didn't rate the actor, now it's a 180, love him and Kylo. Haha funny how that works.

CinemaGuy45

Total flop and a financial loss for Disney

SMC92Ian

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Without seeing the films you deem them rubbish.

No I didn't, don't put words in my mouth.

Wedwood

During lockdown, discovering all these videos complaining about lack of planning on sequel trilogy, lucky they weren’t around in the 70’s/80’s, when Lucas was doing just that with the original movies:

Star Wars - Obi Wan tells Luke Vader killed his father. Luke not happy Han has eyes on Leia during Death Star escape, looks like he wants her for himself.

Empire Strikes Back - Lucas retcons Star Wars and now makes Vader Luke’s father, Lucas leaves it till the next movie to figure out how to explain it . Leia gives Luke a romantic kiss to piss Han off, continuing the love triangle started in the original movie. Yoda makes Luke dispensable by saying ‘there is another’

Return of the Jedi - Obi Wan brought back to retcon ‘Vader killed your Father’, it’s now true from ‘certain point of view’. Lucas retcons Empire Strikes Back, now makes Leia Luke’s sister and ‘the other’, to tie up the loose ends from Empire and also not have Luke lose out on getting the girl. Emperor appears from nowhere, no backstory, acts nasty, gets killed.

Oh, there’s also another session on Tatooine, along with another Death Star making ROTJ a soft remake of the original movie as well as the conclusion.

The internet would have slaughtered these movies if they’d been made today !!!

beauf

Wedwood wrote: »

....
The internet would have slaughtered these movies if they’d been made today !!!

If you think no one noticed the problems in the original movies you're very wrong. They certainly are the cause of all the issues that follows.

You only need a plausible setting to tell a story. You don't to need to explain everything. You don't even need a complex story. Westerns etc.

You certainly don't need a very complex story that explains nothing.

Loafing Oaf

Wedwood wrote: »

Obi Wan brought back to retcon ‘Vader killed your Father’, it’s now true from ‘certain point of view’.

Luke having an epistemological argument with a ghost always struck me as the shark-jumping low point of the original trilogy...

loyatemu

Wedwood wrote: »

Emperor appears from nowhere, no backstory, acts nasty, gets killed.

He's in the second movie (briefly). Also the bad guys are called "The Empire" from the start, there's clearly an Emperor somewhere.

The inconsistency that annoys me throughout SW, and it's just happened again in The Mandalorian, is the way everyone makes like the Force is some made up fairy story from ancient times when there was a Jedi army roaming around within short living memory of all the films (particularly considering many of the characters live much longer than humans, so would have been around for the Old Republic etc).

Drumpot

Wedwood wrote: »

During lockdown, discovering all these videos complaining about lack of planning on sequel trilogy, lucky they weren’t around in the 70’s/80’s, when Lucas was doing just that with the original movies:

Star Wars - Obi Wan tells Luke Vader killed his father. Luke not happy Han has eyes on Leia during Death Star escape, looks like he wants her for himself.

Empire Strikes Back - Lucas retcons Star Wars and now makes Vader Luke’s father, Lucas leaves it till the next movie to figure out how to explain it . Leia gives Luke a romantic kiss to piss Han off, continuing the love triangle started in the original movie. Yoda makes Luke dispensable by saying ‘there is another’

Return of the Jedi - Obi Wan brought back to retcon ‘Vader killed your Father’, it’s now true from ‘certain point of view’. Lucas retcons Empire Strikes Back, now makes Leia Luke’s sister and ‘the other’, to tie up the loose ends from Empire and also not have Luke lose out on getting the girl. Emperor appears from nowhere, no backstory, acts nasty, gets killed.

Oh, there’s also another session on Tatooine, along with another Death Star making ROTJ a soft remake of the original movie as well as the conclusion.

The internet would have slaughtered these movies if they’d been made today !!!

I agree with you, I think a big part of the probelm is some people take themselves too seriously and they they genuinely can’t accept that how they felt about movies decades ago couldn’t possibly be recreated in newer ones and nostalgia taints their capacity for objective assessment.

Similar issue with alien(s) (movies I adore) and Prometheus and Covenant (solid additions IMO). There is a “don’t go sh*ting on originals” defence that is an attempt to cocoon the originals from the very same criticism that newer movies/sequels get.

What’s the wisest thing to do when one of your friends has had an unknown alien organism stuck to his face?

A) have him quarantined until you know what the F**k is going on
have lunch with him and have a good laugh about it

For alien, option B is ignored by nostalgic fans of the franchise but people making stupid decisions in covenant was considered an abomination. Mental gymnastics is used to cover up and excuse these flaws while newer movies (not necessarily original but nowhere near as bad as some complain) get forensically dissected ruthlessly.

I watched Aliens once After arguing with some fans here, intentionally with the same kind of snarky lense a lot of people do with newer alien movies and you really can tear down original movies if you want to ruin them for yourself. I had to stop because I was beginning to see flaws everywhere.

If you want to hate a movie ( “why are they even making this”) you will easily find reasons to hate it.

Tony EH

loyatemu wrote: »

He's in the second movie (briefly). Also the bad guys are called "The Empire" from the start, there's clearly an Emperor somewhere.

Not only that, he was mentioned in the first film too. :pac: So, no, he didn't just come from "appear from nowhere".

It's always gas when the defenders of these shitty movies have to crap all over the original films in an effort to big up the sequels.

The original movies aren't perfect by any means. Nobody has ever said they were. But they were in the making for a long time and ideas were in George's head long before the first camera rolled. There was a solid and wide ranging framework for Lucas to use. He may have tinkered around with the story here and there during the 9 years of making the OT, but the ingredients were there to be moved around.

The sequels, on the other hand, had NOTHING. And they were extremely poor because of it.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

There is a “don’t go sh*ting on originals” defence that is an attempt to cocoon the originals from the very same criticism that newer movies/sequels get.

No, it's not attempt to "cocoon" the original films. But an appeal to people who crap over them in an attempt to prop up the sequels to instead talk about what it is about the sequels they like.

Pointing at the flaws of a previous effort to try an alleviate the problems of a current effort is a non-starter.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

No, it's not attempt to "cocoon" the original films. But an appeal to people who crap over them in an attempt to prop up the sequels to instead talk about what it is about the sequels they like.

Pointing at the flaws of a previous effort to try an alleviate the problems of a current effort is a non-starter.

It’s not about allieviting or forgiving the flaws of a newer movie, it’s pointing out the double standards being applied to how movies are being evaluated. Happens all the time on these forums , people making the very same complaints about newer movies in some franchises that could be applied to the older ones. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Relikk

There's a big difference when you have the bones of a story in your head or written down and fleshed out for 5 years and then making some changes to it while filming, compared to having (clearly) nothing planned out and filming any old shite that the writer/director slapped down on paper after a couple of months.

I like two of the sequels, but this argument is nonsense.

Drumpot

Relikk wrote: »

There's a big difference when you have the bones of a story in your head or written down and fleshed out for 5 years and then making some changes to it while filming, compared to having (clearly) nothing planned out and filming any old shite that the writer/director slapped down on paper after a couple of months.

I like two of the sequels, but this argument is nonsense.

No there isn’t, saying something is so doesn’t make it so. If you are making things up as you go along it either works or it doesn’t, the issue isn’t not having a complete plan, it’s how you execute it or the story you choose to use.

Modern echo chambers have people reverting to lazy methods to judge movies. Many franchises are stained with already negative fans ready to tear it down with “we didn’t want these movies” attitudes before they even hit the screen. This doesn’t lend itself to objective reviews, just people watching movies so they can confirm their negative bias.

Did I enjoy the newer SWs movies as I did the originals? No, no I didn’t but I’m a grown adult and was a child when I watched the originals. I accept the target audience was a younger generation and my 3 children like the newer ones (and the prequels actually). But also, the market is now saturated with fantasy movies and marvel have basically marvelised everybody , as DC found out people want marvel like movies , not different ones. Not just that SWs had no competition in the 80s or even 00s, now children have plenty of alternatives so it’s supposed low numbers aren’t completely down to how it’s been received.

beauf

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s not about allieviting or forgiving the flaws of a newer movie, it’s pointing out the double standards being applied to how movies are being evaluated. Happens all the time on these forums , people making the very same complaints about newer movies in some franchises that could be applied to the older ones. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Not really. They remade true grit and its a great film. French connection 2. Aliens(2), the GodFather 2.

Rogue is a decent film. Awakens apart from being a copy is ok.

I think it's becoming clear is that a lot of people can't tell a good movie from a bad one. They don't care either. Especially with a franchise they'll accept any old drivel.

Drumpot

beauf wrote: »

Not really. They remade true grit and its a great film. French connection 2. Aliens(2), the GodFather 2.

Rogue is a decent film. Awakens apart from being a copy is ok.

I think it's becoming clear is that a lot of people can't tell a good movie from a bad one. They don't care either. Especially with a franchise they'll accept any old drivel.

Ah so you have to either completely love or hate the SWs movies, there’s no room to be in between ? I accept there are issues with the newer movies but not to the extent that people throw their toys out of the pram. If you want to be taken seriously when reviewing a movie, at least have original reasons as to why it’s bad, not reasons that apply to the originals but you just don’t want to go there.

Sequels made close to the time of the original is not a comparable example. Over decades people’s tastes change, particularly the initial target audience of a children’s movie that’s grown up by the time the newer monies are made. Things like having no woman or black men also would be more of a problem nowadays. Nostalgia and fandom is a very powerful thing when influencing people’s reactions to movies and I think a lot of people lack the capacity for self reflection on this fact.

I think a lot of people don’t realise that a movie they find bad is not objectively bad, it’s just a movie they didn’t like for reasons that may not of been an issue for others.

beauf

Drumpot wrote: »

No there isn’t, saying something is so doesn’t make it so. If you are making things up as you go along it either works or it doesn’t, the issue isn’t not having a complete plan, it’s how you execute it or the story you choose to use.

Modern echo chambers have people reverting to lazy methods to judge movies. Many franchises are stained with already negative fans ready to tear it down with “we didn’t want these movies” attitudes before they even hit the screen. This doesn’t lend itself to objective reviews, just people watching movies so they can confirm their negative bias.

Did I enjoy the newer SWs movies as I did the originals? No, no I didn’t but I’m a grown adult and was a child when I watched the originals. I accept the target audience was a younger generation and my 3 children like the newer ones (and the prequels actually). But also, the market is now saturated with fantasy movies and marvel have basically marvelised everybody , as DC found out people want marvel like movies , not different ones. Not just that SWs had no competition in the 80s or even 00s, now children have plenty of alternatives so it’s supposed low numbers aren’t completely down to how it’s been received.

The originals where very popular with adults at that time. Adults watch kids movie all the time. There's so sorts of wrong with your comments about kids.

I think you'll find most kids like the universe of Star wars but they are entirely baffled by the storylines in the new movies. Kids aren't as stupid as you're implying.

While there are flaws in the originals. The sheer vast number of them in the new movies are on a different scale. In any scfi or fantasy movie the universe has rules that have to obeyed in order for it to make sense. The new movies break that constantly.

beauf

Drumpot wrote: »

Ah so you have to either completely love or hate the SWs movies, there’s no room to be in between ? I accept there are issues with the newer movies but not to the extent that people throw their toys out of the pram. If you want to be taken seriously when reviewing a movie, at least have original reasons as to why it’s bad, not reasons that apply to the originals but you just don’t want to go there.

Sequels made close to the time of the original is not a comparable example. Over decades people’s tastes change, particularly the initial target audience of a children’s movie that’s grown up by the time the newer monies are made. Things like having no woman or black men also would be more of a problem nowadays. Nostalgia and fandom is a very powerful thing when influencing people’s reactions to movies and I think a lot of people lack the capacity for self reflection on this fact.

I think a lot of people don’t realise that a movie they find bad is not objectively bad, it’s just a movie they didn’t like for reasons that may not of been an issue for others.

Your just making stuff now. Now one said you have to completely love it or hate it anything. That's just gibberish.

Subjective is one thing.

But the new movies are objectively bad. They plagerise other movies in the same franchise. The storylines make no sense and constantly break the rules not simply of the universe they are in, or the genre, or the franchise. They break the rules set in the same movie, often from one scene to the next.

You can't explain that by its all subjective.

Drumpot

beauf wrote: »

The originals where very popular with adults at that time. Adults watch kids movie all the time. There's so sorts of wrong with your comments about kids.

I think you'll find most kids like the universe of Star wars but they are entirely baffled by the storylines in the new movies. Kids aren't as stupid as your implying.

While there are flaws in the originals. The sheer vast number of them in the new movies are on a different scale. In any scfi or fantasy movie the universe has rules that have to obeyed in order for it to make sense. The new movies break that constantly.

I have three kids, they weren’t baffled with the story line. I wouldn’t pretend to know what makes children tick, they like what they like.

Demanding rigid set of rules of a fantasy movie With force ghosts and magicians who can do things with their mind is silly. These things either matter to you or they don’t, they don’t have to matter. I think some of you take this way to seriously and can’t see how these are not absolutely irrefutable issues, they are just issues you find unacceptable.

Drumpot

beauf wrote: »

Your just making stuff now. Now one said you have to completely love it or hate it anything. That's just gibberish.

Subjective is one thing.

But the new movies are objectively bad. They plagerise other movies in the same franchise. The storylines make no sense and constantly break the rules not simply of the universe they are in, or the genre, or the franchise. They break the rules set in the same movie, often from one scene to the next.

You can't explain that by its all subjective.

Build a second Death Star set that tone in TESB/TROTJ.

“Breaking the rules of the universe”, wow the rules of a fictional universe cannot be changed or added to, why?

This is all subjective discussion, stop pretending you have some sort of moral high ground here.

beauf

Drumpot wrote: »

I have three kids, they weren’t baffled with the story line. I wouldn’t pretend to know what makes children tick, they like what they like.

Demanding rigid set of rules of a fantasy movie With force ghosts and magicians who can do things with their mind is silly. These things either matter to you or they don’t, they don’t have to matter. I think some of you take this way to seriously and can’t see how these are not absolutely irrefutable issues, they are just issues you find unacceptable.

I'm just saying if you want to play say football or chess there's is a convention of following some rules.

You're basically telling me you want to play football or chess and make up the rules as you go. Because you enjoy that better, and you don't really want to learn them anyway.

Who am I to ruin your fun...

SMC92Ian

beauf wrote: »

I think it's becoming clear is that a lot of people can't tell a good movie from a bad one. They don't care either. Especially with a franchise they'll accept any old drivel.

That's a matter of taste. Look at all the classics of today that were slaughtered and panned back in the day by critics. It's all subjective.

beauf

SMC92Ian wrote: »

That's a matter of taste. Look at all the classics of today that were slaughtered and panned back in the day by critics. It's all subjective.

How well people enjoy a movie is subjective.

How well its made, crafted, isn't.

SMC92Ian

beauf wrote: »

How well people enjoy a movie is subjective.

How well its made, crafted, isn't.

You can't tell me the newer films weren't made well, that's talking sh*te, yes the story isn't exactly amazing or a masterpiece but to knock everything else with the movies down is rubbish. It was all made by passionate people to the highest of quality.

johnny_ultimate

Films can be objectively good or bad now? Great! Happy to declare The Last Jedi is objectively the best Star Wars films.

Glad to finally put that one to bed folks. Stay safe!

beauf

SMC92Ian wrote: »

You can't tell me the newer films weren't made well, that's talking sh*te, yes the story isn't exactly amazing or a masterpiece but to knock everything else with the movies down is rubbish. It was all made by passionate people to the highest of quality.

More hyperbole.

A Lotus might have a bad radio. Complaining about the radio doesn't mean you're complaining about the whole car.

SMC92Ian

beauf wrote: »

More hyperbole.

A Lotus might have a bad radio. Complaining about the radio doesn't mean you're complaining about the whole car.

Most people are saying this was only made for money and rushed out for this and that, go watch the behind the scenes.

SMC92Ian

SMC92Ian wrote: »

You can't tell me the newer films weren't made well, that's talking sh*te, yes the story isn't exactly amazing or a masterpiece but to knock everything else with the movies down is rubbish. It was all made by passionate people to the highest of quality.

the story, script and acting are pretty rotten

this matters.

it counts towards whether a movie is made well for a lot of people

less so for you, mazel tov

why so madd lil doggie