You see, that's where we disagree. I think it's truer in spirit to the first two Star Wars movies, than anything that's come since.
Film Star Wars: Episode VIII
- Thread starter Someone
- Start date
You see, that's where we disagree. I think it's truer in spirit to the first two Star Wars movies, than anything that's come since.
The Internet happened.
Now there you have it. I would personally had centred around Prince Xizor going on an adventure with Joruus C'baoth and Kyle Katarn. Come on, it's a sequel to the Star Wars films. They even went as far as removing them out of the expanded universe as they would be impossible for anyone who didn't follow the hundreds of uneven spin-offs to follow. It's about the movie universe, which to most people, is a cultural touchstone. Let it go. They are making a trilogy about elsewhere in the universe, soon you can moan about how that isn't exactly what you wanted either.
This doesn;t do much to suggest you're not a Star Wars fanatic that is pissed because TLJ didn't match what you had in mind.
I'm more than willing to bet the final movie is going to do bug money regardless of your take on it.
Rey needed Kylo's help in the battle against the red guards. They're probably somewhat on a level due to his anger issues and her still learning.
Agree on that.
It’s understandable. As in, I understand why it happens. I maintain it’s a daft (and yes, slightly strange) way to judge the quality of a movie. Which should only ever be judged by what happens on the screen in front of you. And I’m definitely seeing comments on here arguing it’s a bad film from people who are really just disappointed it wasn’t the narrative they wanted.
Also. It’s particularly daft in the context of Star Wars. Which was, first and foremost, a universe created on the big screen. Which is a different scenario to comic books being turned into movies.
Last edited:
Agree about Rey not being stronger than Ren currently. Ren was heavily injured (Chewbacca hit him with his crossbow) and emotionally destroyed, having just killed Han.
About the bloodline, I kind of agree, but Skywalkers (and to be fair, all chosen ones) are a bit special, so they are an exception.
And also he was fascinated by her from the start. She wanted to destroy him but he wanted to get her to join him.
I though Luke's explanation of the reality of the Force and his doubts about the Jedi were beautifully done (as well as his ultimate acceptance of the usefulness of the Jedi). The Force is all life, though some might find it easier than others to tap into, as someone might be a better musician than someone else.
Star Wars films were about telling the story of Darth Vader - his rise and fall. Lucas himself said that. There was no need to make a movie set after the fall of the Empire because that destroys the purpose of the OT, as well. Tell me what was the point of the OT when the Empire came back stronger than ever and the Rebels continue to be uh... rebels? The thing with Star Wars is that it has such vast universe, they could have done practically everything you can think of, and they decided not to.
Well, it's Star Wars. You can have a whole movie of Chewbacca sneezing and it would still make a billion.
Well, sure, but that doesn't discount the fact she is stronger than him. And I'm not talking only about their lightsaber fight, she overpowered him with the Force twice in TFA.
Has anyone watched this review from Ben Shapiro? It actually captures my thoughts on the movie very well:
I enjoyed that stuff as well but I took the message of the movie as disagreeing with his more cynical stance. By the end he referred to Rey as a Jedi, she saved the books from the tree and we were back to the classic Jedi vs Sith scenario.
Is the next movie announced as being the final part of a trilogy?
I assumed they'd just keep making these things indefinitely.
I assumed they'd just keep making these things indefinitely.
But Kylo's already a mass murderer. Luke and now Rey are looking beyond what went before but I'd be dubious of anyone wanting to rule with space-Stalin.
How is that comparable? An equivalent criticism of this would be that the space battles weren't immersive enough. Or any other criticism of the way in which elements of the story were portrayed on screen. What I'm getting at is the criticism that they should have included characters x, y and z and that these characters should have done a, b and c.
The former is legitimate film criticism, the latter is just people being annoyed they didn't get the narrative they wanted/expected. And you don't see that ever happen outside this sort of movie, where an existing fan-base feel the storyline should pander to their own expectations and decide it's a shitty movie if/when that doesn't happen.
Yes, in the end he came to accept the necessity of the Jedi (just probably not as they'd been before).
Yeee.... Kind of. The ones at the larger publications know their stuff. The internet ones (Collider, etc.) you could make a decent argument that you're correct.
This is becoming an issue and the general public doesn't know/can't comment on just how much Disney is aggressively flexing its power within the industry or how exactly those machinations play out. It really is unprecedented. The power of Disney in the past eighteen months has grown enough that it is definitely reasonable to assume that almost every indie/low-level critic with their livelihood on the line will have serious second thoughts about offering anything but praise for anything coming out of the studio, not just because 'it's Disney' but also because you're talking about the director, the stars, and most importantly their agencies. Disney is in a somewhat unprecedented position to be able to leverage that against any dissenting voices. Not that they weren't before, but their position has become much stronger.
It hasn't gone unnoticed that even slightly 'negative' TLJ reviews came from mostly protected critics at rival corporations (CNN, etc.)
That being said, it's not at the point where these people will so pressured as to de facto offer a positive review for fear of being blacklisted.
But you're right to make note of it as it's definitely a thing and going forward it will become very real; it first came to notice after Beauty and the Beast early this year, where a lot of critics just gave up comparing it to the excellent original and essentially saying 'it's great for what it is.'
The TLJ critic's positive consensus thing is probably largely the same thing that happened after TFA, where everyone was just falling over themselves to praise it and then after the dust had settled they actually realized it was poorly constructed/executed. Basically everyone is hedging and not wanting to step forward as a likely lone voice of dissension during the immediate post-release afterglow.
So what you're saying is that Disney is essentially the First Order? How Meta.
I still feel Ren is on par with Rey.
I'm very fond of Ben Sharipo and was going to make a political thread on him because he's so intelligent (in my opinion).
Here though he is talking mostly dross. He is angry about the lack of a Snoke back drop when there never really needed to be one. He's smart enough to know hiding a back story opens up the chance for a prequel/character movie and therefore $$$. I have no problem with that given his cameo role in TFA didn't make him the epicentre of anything in the first place.
Shapiro also doesn't like the concept of Han dying and puts it in no small part down to him loving Han as a kid. He claims he didn't need to die, which he did because it cemented Ben as Ren from there on plus Hans character was closed as a chapter anyway. Continuing Ford in Star Wars would be like forcing another Indiana Jones character to the screen when he's past it, or making Undertaker do his 500th wrestlemania or whatever. Han had his day, he's a big character and like many characters his chapter was rightfully closed.
Shapiro then has issues with the political implications from the film and called the subplot of Rose and Finn a bunch of social justice warrior bullshit without actually recognising the whole star wars script is pretty much about social justice. He then takes the scene from (I think) ESB where Han had to cut open the animal stomach out of necessity to point to contradictions in sudden animal right activism shown by Rose when she lifted saddles from the rabbit horses in TLJ. The two can't be compared and Shapiro was trying to beat his anti social justice point home through it which was pretty stupid.
The only valid point he makes is about using light speed as a weapon. Everything else is trash and that's because he doesn't necessarily speak through logic but his own nostalgia of what he wants star wars to be and being upset the story didn't go the way he wanted in his head.
I'm very fond of Ben Sharipo and was going to make a political thread on him because he's so intelligent (in my opinion).
Here though he is talking mostly dross. He is angry about the lack of a Snoke back drop when there never really needed to be one. He's smart enough to know hiding a back story opens up the chance for a prequel/character movie and therefore $$$. I have no problem with that given his cameo role in TFA didn't make him the epicentre of anything in the first place.
Shapiro also doesn't like the concept of Han dying and puts it in no small part down to him loving Han as a kid. He claims he didn't need to die, which he did because it cemented Ben as Ren from there on plus Hans character was closed as a chapter anyway. Continuing Ford in Star Wars would be like forcing another Indiana Jones character to the screen when he's past it, or making Undertaker do his 500th wrestlemania or whatever. Han had his day, he's a big character and like many characters his chapter was rightfully closed.
Shapiro then has issues with the political implications from the film and called the subplot of Rose and Finn a bunch of social justice warrior bullshit without actually recognising the whole star wars script is pretty much about social justice. He then takes the scene from (I think) ESB where Han had to cut open the animal stomach out of necessity to point to contradictions in sudden animal right activism shown by Rose when she lifted saddles from the rabbit horses in TLJ. The two can't be compared and Shapiro was trying to beat his anti social justice point home through it which was pretty stupid.
The only valid point he makes is about using light speed as a weapon. Everything else is trash and that's because he doesn't necessarily speak through logic but his own nostalgia of what he wants star wars to be and being upset the story didn't go the way he wanted in his head.
Last edited:
The complaint is it not being what you wanted it to be. There’s been plenty of criticisms of how the story was portrayed on screen. Like scenes talking about the nature of good and evil delivered with topless jokes.
You don’t see it outside of series or book adaptations because there is no existing backstory or characters.
There’s plenty in this film to criticise and it’s not all because of people wanting the story to go a different way. It didn’t even do a good follow on from the opening part of its own trilogy.
Ugh. Didn’t watch the video as can’t be arsed with youtube nit-picking from fan-boys. Especially when they’re just using it to further their own political agenda. Worth pointing out, though, that Han only chopped open his mount after it had just dropped dead.
Although that does remind me how much more grisly the first trilogy was, compared to the super-sanitised versions we watch nowadays. Which is a shame but there you go.
I had no expectations about what I wanted Inception to be. Other than a good movie. And when a movie about dreams features dream sequences that aren’t remotely dream-like (IMHO) then that’s a problem. A problem which has bugger all to do with any baggage or preconceived ideas I brought with me.
FWIW I’m not arguing that this is a great movie. It’s got loads of flaws and issues. I happen to think it’s a solid 7/10 good fun family blockbuster. I’m sure other people - with different tastes in movies - disagree. And that’s fine. I’m just picking up on this thing where it’s being criticised by people who wanted a different storyline, for not having the storyline they wanted.
Wonder how much their power diminishes as the bloodline becomes less pure. Surely it affects the *spits* midichlorian count as they have children with none Jedi bloodlines. Maybe if the Empire Strikes Back incest theme was more than just Lucas making it up as he went along, we would have found out!
There may be no need, but Lucas has his own 7,8 and 9 outlines so not sure that stands up. I think in the past 35 years in the movie universe, the New Republic was formed, the First Order rose and some people had some children. There's plenty reason to explore that.
A boy stabbed his father in the chest and stared into the whites of his eyes whilst doing so. Easily the darkest moment of the entire series for me. Although that roasted Porg comes close... Oh actually no, Anakin's burning was pretty gross.
feck me, we’re using Ben Shapiro as evidence why Star Wars is shit and for SJW ***** now are we? The patron saint of entitled angry white man children?
Jesus Christ 2017, just fecking end already.
Jesus Christ 2017, just fecking end already.
Last edited:
If this isn't just some glib comment, then yes, they kind of are. Disney has long been reputed as the most cnutish of the 'big six' studios.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/disney-the-last-jedi-rules-movies-1.4455305
Going after the smaller exhibitors so strictly is pretty much unheard of. It's a clear sign of Disney pushing the limits and seeing what will stick so they can get data going forward.
There's also word going around - unverified so take it with a grain of salt; I can both imagine them doing this and not being stupid enough to do this - that Disney has also imposed restrictions regarding handicapped assistance tickets in foreign territories. AKA usually the guardian/accompanying party of a handicapped person will get half price tickets. But apparently Disney has explicitly forbidden this for TLJ. Again, completely unheard of and a definite sign of them testing the limits of what people will put up with post-acquisitions. It's even slimier if it's true they've done this for foreign territories but not for North America, where the backlash would be immediate and prominent.
Id imagine the chances of this being true are slim to none. The amount of money extra this would make them compared to the PR risk just wouldn’t make sense.
I love this. "Reviewers are paid shills with an agenda. This rightwing political commentator is the one you should all be listening to."
What PR risk. There's virtually none. The vast majority of people will not care and as you mentioned the amount involved is tiny. The only people who will care are the affected, and even then it's a matter of five or six extra dollars. And North America will definitely not care about it happening to people in Vietnam, Sweden, etc. Again, it's a situation of Disney holding more and more cards.
As mentioned, I can both completely see them doing this and don't think they'd be stupid enough to do this in about equal measure.
As mentioned, I can both completely see them doing this and don't think they'd be stupid enough to do this in about equal measure.
People really bothered about different coloured skin or a different sex going on a mission. You'd think race wouldn't be a problem for a series that has talking fish and whatever Jaba the hut is.
That DC subject seems to have created the "critics are paid off" nonsense.
Sure Mark Kermode is loving all that Disney money after his love for the Pirates of the Caribbean films.
Saw it a couple of days ago. I liked it a lot, to be honest, and the further away from it I get the more I think I enjoyed it.
They went for something ambitious and subversive in a way that J.J. Abrams went for something true to the nature of what Star Wars fans expect their franchise to feel like at this stage. But Rian Johnson went for a film that completely burnt down everything we believe we know about the Star Wars franchise, and got it mostly spot on. It's not like I didn't have issues, and for the first hour I was worried about being slightly let down, but it's a good, solid two hours at the cinema that gave me a lot to reconsider and ponder once the movie was over. Job done really. 8/10.
They went for something ambitious and subversive in a way that J.J. Abrams went for something true to the nature of what Star Wars fans expect their franchise to feel like at this stage. But Rian Johnson went for a film that completely burnt down everything we believe we know about the Star Wars franchise, and got it mostly spot on. It's not like I didn't have issues, and for the first hour I was worried about being slightly let down, but it's a good, solid two hours at the cinema that gave me a lot to reconsider and ponder once the movie was over. Job done really. 8/10.
Of course there’s a PR risk, these countries aren’t cut off from the rest of the world anymore, people will find out and kick up a fuss straight away. Stitching up disabled people is exactly emotive enough to cause a massive storm.
The Red Letter Media review made me laugh. Apparently The Last Jedi was "the movie equivalent of Homer Simpson's make up gun" 
Oh god, the prototype right wing snowflake?
The only thing he is right about is that people should not try to interfere with his right to speak and that the BDS moement is utter idiocy and everyone truly following it is an anti-semite. Doesn't change the fact that nothing that ever left his mouth apart from this made sense whatsoever. Just a slimey "I want the 50's back" conservative. Americas Rees-Mogg.It’s not really what the film was about though. It’s just another example of wanting a film to be something that never tried to be that. It’s the same criticism.
Most of the complaints boils down to the story not being good enough. As a stand-alone film the criticisms wouldn’t be valid and you could only really criticise the terrible comedy. It isn’t a standalone film though. I don’t think anyone would say it should be this or that if it was still good. At least it would be in a very small minority anyway.
No, it isn't. And no, they wouldn't. Not for something like this. The vast majority of cases will go: "It's not for all films from now on is it? No, just for this one?" And the theater will say "Yes, we're really sorry. If it were up to us it'd be the price you're used to." "Oh, okay." And they'll fork over the extra $5 and not be too bothered. Again, it's not like they're charging the handicapped extra. Just the accompanying party.
The only reason I think it even could be true is because the word is it's just the accompanying party.
Films that also demonstrate how pointless buying off critics would be in the first place. Clearly overwhelmingly negative reviews don't always impact on box office performance. If they did we wouldn't have so many terrible blockbusters every year.
Star Wars is about as critic-proof as it gets.
In the spirit of nit-picking on plot points, though, the one issue I do have is why on earth...
...
If you can’t beat em...
...
they didn’t all get into escape pods and immediately light space their cargo ship into the baddies. This surely didn’t need to involve anyone sacrificing themself either. Bit fecking weird that the average 2017 VW hatch-back seems to have more sophisticated auto-pilot capabilities than space ships capable of flying faster than the speed of light.
If you can’t beat em...
Not to mention any of the droids that surely could have piloted it.
Never mind old squid face this was finally 3PO's chance to shine!
It’s not about the people actually going though, it just takes a few people to catch wind to start kicking up a fuss and the whole thing snowballs. We’ve since massive shitstorms on the internet over far far smaller things than this.
It doesn’t matter that it’s not actually the disabled party because you’re still stitching them up as they can’t go without the other person. You can’t underestimate the internets ability to blow these things up.
So why would disney risk it for what essentially would gain them a minute amount of money in the grand scheme of things?
Horrible movie, just horrible. I couldn't believe how shite it could be.
Made Jar Jar Binks feel like a noteworthy character, one point for that.
1/10
Made Jar Jar Binks feel like a noteworthy character, one point for that.
1/10
If they did that then wouldn't all the escape pods be left pretty helpless in the general vicinity of all the bad guys who survived being lightspeeded to death? Their plan to sneak safely onto the planet before luring all the bad guys away with a jump into lightspeed makes more sense, I think.
Autopilot would still have done the job, mind.
Autopilot would still have done the job, mind.
People underestimate how thoroughly corporations research such calculated steps if and when they do decide to take them. For example - slightly indirectly-related in this case - actuarial tables and what they're used for in various businesses.
If the whole shebang is true, then they did so because they calculated that the negative PR would not outweigh the increased benefit and especially the future benefit should it become feasible to implement such measures permanently. Also, the parties who would want to smear them for this were it true are at the same time all parties who would actually like to be able to do this themselves if possible.
Also, it absolutely does matter that it's not actually the disabled party. "Disney nixes discount TLJ tickets for handicapped persons" is a PR firestorm. "Disney nixes discount TLJ tickets for handicapped assistance parties in all non-north america territories" is a non-story.
You’re severely underestimating this, we live in a world of microagressions now, this would take off in a heartbeat. If anything being outside America wouldn’t make things better for them. “Disney screwing people in less advantaged countries”, Twitter lynch mobs would love a slice of that action.
Anyway is there any other proof to this other than “word is going round”. Unlikely because it’s a stupid idea for Disney to try.