Star Wars Thread: I KNOW WHAT THAT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Relic]

TLJ cured me of my life long Star Wars addiction, so I'm grateful for its existence. 

[Ran]

26 minutes ago, Relic said:

TLJ cured me of my life long Star Wars addiction, so I'm grateful for its existence. 

The prequels didn't do that already?

That said, certainly any visions I had of rapturous bliss from finally seeing the post-OT story are definitely gone by the wayside. They're just films, some better than others, now.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Recently watched solo. Now I’ve seen all the prequel movie. Now I can say I found Rogue one to be the weakest Prequel by far. Note I said prequel here-not movie as a whole. It’s a decent movie imo, but I don’t see it having really added much to my appreciation to the original trilogy as much as the Lucas prequels or even Solo. 

It's a dark day when you and I are conjoined in our assessment of Star Wars.

Come back to us, VarysBlackfyre. Reasonable liberal ideology is not antithetical to your artistic sensibilities. Remember that "MARY SUE, LUBTARD CUCKERY" (I am enormously intoxicated] is an undignified and altogether uninteresting criticisim and i think we can be dedicated allies in this thread.

You may respectfully consider yourself the Bulgarian essence (doughty fighters, make no mistake) to mine own Nazi Germany in this theater.

[Heartofice]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Recently watched solo. Now I’ve seen all the prequel movie. Now I can say I found Rogue one to be the weakest Prequel by far. Note I said prequel here-not movie as a whole. It’s a decent movie imo, but I don’t see it having really added much to my appreciation to the original trilogy as much as the Lucas prequels or even Solo. 

I'm interested in what you feel the Lucas prequels added to the OT. Myself it took me a long time to not feel like Star Wars hadn't been utterly destroyed by the prequels on almost every level. From Midichlorians ruing the mythos of the Force, to thinking of Darth Vader as nothing but a whiney teenager under that cool black garb, the whole thing was a huge destruction of everything I had imagined growing up. 

I mean, I got past that feeling, then I just became ambivalent towards the Prequels, I see them as a sort of bad joke, that have little connection to the OT at all, like a fan film. That helps me get through the day. 

Rogue One, sure it has it's issues, but it felt connected to the OT, it made me excited and interested in the Star Wars universe again. Maybe I can say the same for Solo in some ways ( although I think that is a pretty bland and flawed movie).

[sifth]

5 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

lol, Roses's SJW Ideology. Not sure where to start.

Maybe with the fact you should watch that scene again, since its Finn and DJ, not Rose.

I'll admit I've only seen the movie once and it's been well over a year since I saw it as well. I just remember Rose being all about how "everyone at the casino is evil for being rich" and "why doesn't anyone think of the animals" and crap like that. I know in hindsight it's not quite SJW topics, but still trash things I don't want in a Star Wars movie.

 

I'm still upset that Disney replaced Michael K Williams, with Paul Bettany in Solo. For the record I like Paul Bettany a lot, but MKW is just on another level. The guy is such a fun actor filled with so much energy. You just can't replace Omar with anyone, IMO

[Werthead]

I think a broad overview of the situation is that Lucas tried to do something interesting with the prequels but completely destroyed the execution with awful dialogue, leaden direction and not getting good performances out of excellent actors: apart from Christopher Lee and Liam Neeson, no-one in that trilogy gave a really good performance (even McDiarmid gives up halfway through the second movie and starts chewing the scenery like a nutjob), even though Portman and Mcgregor are not exactly slouches in the acting department.

For some bizarre reason Disney seem to have decided the problem wasn't that George Lucas had become a self-indulgent hack and had never been a good writer in the first place (the original movie was not in a great shape in the script stage either and it was saved by the script doctors and editors), but because the movies had gone in a different direction to the original trilogy. So they just decided to remake the original trilogy with new characters, which was a very weird choice. The dialogue, humour and characterisation in the new films is far superior to the prequels, but in terms of originality and structure, they are just repeating the beats of the original trilogy (TLJ is less obviously a retread of ESB, but there are still some massive similarities between the stories). There's also the problem that both Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams do not give one single flying shit about continuity, canon, worldbuilding or attention to detail, meaning the films are filleted with plot holes, inconsistencies and illogical character and plot developments, even if the movies overall are still watchable and somewhat entertaining.

Another part of the problem is that Disney are leaning away from what Marvel are leaning into: letting each director and writing team create their own story and then fit it into the universe. The MCU has thrived ever since Marvel stopped trying to straitjacket directors with visual flair (and losing them in the process, like Edgar Wright) and letting them do their stuff whilst respecting the overall franchise. Disney seem terrified of doing this with Star Wars, firing directors or redoing their work if they feel they're moving away from the brand identity. This is limiting and closing down what Star Wars can be, forcing everything into a single tone and feeling which cannot possibly sustain a large number of movies going forwards.

Of course, maybe such analyses are missing a more simple and obvious point: we're no longer 6 years old and there's no way for modern Star Wars films to have the same emotional resonance and impact on us. That's not to excuse that Disney are screwing some elements up, and Fury Road and Blade Runner 2049 both certainly show that you can take a decades-old franchise and make a sequel to it which is flat-out brilliant,w hich the new movies haven't done yet (Rogue One probably had the best potential to do that, but suffered from patchy characterisation and slight narrative disjointedness from the different directors).

43 minutes ago, sifth said:

I'm still upset that Disney replaced Michael K Williams, with Paul Bettany in Solo. For the record I like Paul Bettany a lot, but MKW is just on another level. The guy is such a fun actor filled with so much energy. You just can't replace Omar with anyone, IMO

There was a scheduling clash and MKW couldn't come back to do the (very extensive) reshoots because he was on another, pre-booked project. He wanted to do it, Ron Howard wanted him to do it, they just couldn't make it work.

[sifth]

43 minutes ago, Werthead said:

There was a scheduling clash and MKW couldn't come back to do the (very extensive) reshoots because he was on another, pre-booked project. He wanted to do it, Ron Howard wanted him to do it, they just couldn't make it work.

Yea, I know about that, still sucks to lose MKW though, regardless of the reason. Replacing Lord and Miller didn't make me very happy either, especially with a "yes man" like Ron Howard. Ironically one of the few things I didn't hate about Solo was Alden Ehrenreich as Han and I went in prepared to hate the guy. He looks and acts nothing like Ford, but for some odd reason still feels like Han...............if that makes sense.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

For some bizarre reason Disney seem to have decided the problem wasn't that George Lucas had become a self-indulgent hack and had never been a good writer in the first place (the original movie was not in a great shape in the script stage either and it was saved by the script doctors and editors), but because the movies had gone in a different direction to the original trilogy. So they just decided to remake the original trilogy with new characters, which was a very weird choice.

My thinking is that in a risk adverse environment, the manner that Disney has proceeded with the new trilogy is mostly pretty predictable. The large cash investment in the franchise needs good returns. So they hired a proven director, who has experience of updating an old sci-fi franchise for modern audience. I feel they were scared to branch out or take risks by telling a new story or advancing on the OT, due to possible lack of interest from kids. So they just took the Star Wars template and built around it. They added some characters that seemed to fit a mould, that would be popular with all demographics of kids and adults alike. Then they made sure there were enough elements in there from the OT to get the SW Geeks in, and gradually phased those characters out. 

The new films have an enormously cynical, cash grabby air to them. I think TFA is a better movie than TLJ but its also much blander.  

There also seems to be a modern blockbuster formula, that Marvel are now very good at, and SW seems to want to use that formula to pump out movies. I just don't think elements of it really fit. I always felt like the OT had a timeless quality, it didn't really seem to part of any decade of movie making especially. But TFA and TLJ are clearly products of the last decade, their pacing, speech patterns, humour all feel designed to appeal to a modern audience, cynically so. 

Maybe hiring Johnson was a risk, and it has proven to be so, but even then his story still seems to follow a basic structure not far off what you would expect. Maybe after TFA's success they thought they could take more risks with it, but TFA certainly wasn't pushing it.

Quote

Another part of the problem is that Disney are leaning away from what Marvel are leaning into: letting each director and writing team create their own story and then fit it into the universe. The MCU has thrived ever since Marvel stopped trying to straitjacket directors with visual flair (and losing them in the process, like Edgar Wright) and letting them do their stuff whilst respecting the overall franchise. Disney seem terrified of doing this with Star Wars, firing directors or redoing their work if they feel they're moving away from the brand identity. This is limiting and closing down what Star Wars can be, forcing everything into a single tone and feeling which cannot possibly sustain a large number of movies going forwards.

Honestly I don't see this as a problem. If there was a continuity bible or strict guidelines for SW movies that made sure they stuck the essence of the OT then I would be totally fine with them doing that over hiring up and coming directors to add their take on things. Sometimes those young guys can really make amazing work, like in Thor Ragnarok. But I don't think that level of freedom works in the SW universe in the same way that it does in Marvel, because I think hopefully they are trying to tell one long joined up story. Maybe side projects like Solo could use my individuality, but I don't want that in the main movies. Part of my problem with TLJ is that Rian Johnson has gotten the tone of SW completely wrong, as if he simply doesn't understand SW at all.

 

[sifth]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My thinking is that in a risk adverse environment, the manner that Disney has proceeded with the new trilogy is mostly pretty predictable. The large cash investment in the franchise needs good returns. So they hired a proven director, who has experience of updating an old sci-fi franchise for modern audience. I feel they were scared to branch out or take risks by telling a new story or advancing on the OT, due to possible lack of interest from kids. So they just took the Star Wars template and built around it. They added some characters that seemed to fit a mould, that would be popular with all demographics of kids and adults alike. Then they made sure there were enough elements in there from the OT to get the SW Geeks in, and gradually phased those characters out. 

 

You know the moment Abrams was revealed to be the director a massive red flag went off in my head. The guy has made a career out of copying the ideas better people came up with before him. What really sucks though was Brad Bird was apparently offered the job before Abrams, but turned it down to work on Tomorrowland. Brad Bird is amazing and gave me some of my favorite movies growing up like The Iron Giant and the Incredibles. I mean sure Tomorrowland was trash, but there's only so much you can do with a Damon Lindelof screenplay, lol

[kuenjato]

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I think if you believe that TLJ is mostly ideological in our current culture (especially compared to something explicitly so like fury road) you've already bought into what the MRA crowd has been selling. There are a lot of thematic elements and viewpoints in TLJ, but none of them are particularly politically ideological.

So yes, I agree that it did those things badly and clumsily because it wasnt trying to do those at all.

It's not "mostly" ideological, it's just that the ideology is badly shoehorned into an established saga, and the content probably most worthy of exploring (like arms sales in a never-ending galactic conflict) are given short-shift to crap like Holdo vs. Poe, the entirety of which invalidates the bolded statement above. Speaking of which, the bolded is one of the stupidest statements you've ever written on this site, and I've read a lot of what you've written, be it insightful, challenging, or ideologically-blinkered.

One doesn't have to "buy in" to the MRA crowd to view this as a sloppy, shoddy entry to a long-running serial, chock full of prequel-era terrible writing and shoestring plotting and tone-inappropriate humor, coupled with really crude, blunt ideological intentions towards addressing some of the underlying conflicts of our modern period. If Johnson and Disney were going to go this route, it could have become a masterpiece, with careful writing, plotting, and thematic development. Instead it's a confused mess, one which devalues one of the central characters & themes of the entire series and doesn't even do a good job of portraying Luke as a bitter old defeatist, rendering him instead a cheap representation of Boomers in the Vapor Age.  

After writing my screed yesterday, I reflected on its harshness in tone, then realized I dislike TLJ for the same reason I dislike Goodkind. I teach a course on propaganda, and find some of it stunningly beautiful, even while portraying a harmful message; other pieces are just hollow cartoons ejected from mediocre minds, a la Sword of Truth. Though of completely different perspective, TLJ is the Terry Goodkind of Star Wars, and it irritates to see Luke & the possibility of these new characters diminished or destroyed in such an uncouth manner.

 

EDIT: I'm going to keep the pejorative "stupidest" above, because the other word that comes to mind is "dishonest." Every single media critic of a certain ideological bent across multiple websites love this film, and though they won't admit it -- simply resorting to "it's challenging! subversive! fanboys can't handle it!" -- the truth is, a film this big inserting these themes into the masses is a good thing, regardless of it's quality or lack thereof. It's created this weird cagey wink-wink, nudge-nudge shuffle-dance among identitarians in regards to the very fucking obvious things Johnson put in this film, and unfortunately, put them in very baldly and very badly.

[Jaxom 1974]

11 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Are you talking about the Poe that JJ wanted to kill off and changed his mind after Oscar Isaac begged him not to, and tried to make something with him? That Poe?

Yup. If JJ had any credulity, he'd have stuck with his guns and not embraced the fucking vacuum of space that is the character of Poe.  

[sifth]

17 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Yup. If JJ had any credulity, he'd have stuck with his guns and not embraced the fucking vacuum of space that is the character of Poe.  

How did Poe survive anyway? I'm sure this is covered in the books or something, but in the movie it's done in a very half assed way, where Poe just randomly shows up in the third act of the film and says, "hey guys, I'm not dead". I mean I don't think I've every seen a character come back to life in such a half-assed way before. It's never a good sign when the dragon balls make more sense than something, lol

[Ran]

Huh. I had no idea that Poe was supposed to die. I like Oscar Isaac a lot -- great actor, and he has real charm in the role -- but I suspect his early death would have contributed positively to both TFA and TLJ.

[Corvinus85]

I've finally read that essay, and I liked it for the most part. I think the author is a bit off on some stuff, and I agree with @Ran that some stuff could have been tweaked here and there, which would have greatly improved the plot. 

The author's arguments and examples of what doesn't constitute a "plot hole" are sound, but there are plot holes in this film. Here are two examples I can think of:

1) I can't match the eloquence of @Jace, Basilissa, but she brings up the good point of why didn't the bad guys shoot the ships first, instead of the base, which wasn't going anywhere. The author of the essay would claim that when we scream "plot hole" we only put our way of thinking in a hindsight sort of way, rather than actually try to understand the characters on screen. But the truth of the matter is those characters are incompetent, and thus poorly written. When I think of what they should have done vs what they did, I try to be as objective as possible. I don't simply imagine myself in their shoes, because I know my limitations, and would have royally fucked it up, too. While I have no military experience, I do think of what would a real military office have done. The answer to that is that it depends, because in real life there's incompetent officers, which would have fucked it up, too, and competent ones which would have done the right, efficient thing.

So the real question is why are these villains so damn incompetent? Maybe this doesn't constitute an example of a "plot hole", but it does constitute poor writing. The entire sequence could have been easily improved by adding some fucking ion cannons on the base, which at the same time as it threw some additional good nostalgia feels of Echo Base, would have provided a good reason for the villains to recognize the base as the immediate threat to be removed, and thus improve their characterization. If it takes one one dude (Poe) whose already developed his skills off screen, to rip through their shit, what do these villains have to offer other than a mild form of entertainment? In contrast, take Grand Admiral Thrawn, who is a great villain because he is good at his job, and can only be beaten by the good guys improving themselves. Even Kylo Ren fails in this regard - he is a complex villain, we get to see his struggles and motivations, but he always gets beaten, so why do we need to fear him?

2) The #1 plot hole in TLJ to me is the moment that precedes the start of the slowest space chase in history - the weird, inexplicable dropping out of lightspeed in (sort of) the middle of nowhere. This is the first time in a Star Wars movie that this happens. It's the moment that leads up the overall conflict presented in the movie. When did we ever see a starship just drop out of lightspeed on its own, without reaching a certain destination? Sure, there's the issue of fuel, but it's mentioned that there was fuel for another lightspeed jump. Remember in A New Hope when Han chides Luke about not rushing the lightspeed navigation, even though they're being shot at? Yeah, what happened to that? As a nerd, one thing I do like to see is lore consistency in an expansive fantasy/SF universe. It creates better immersion when, despite all the fantasy elements, there are also sets of rules, and the writing acknowledges those, no? While there was urgency at the end of the rebel evacuation of the base, the evacuation itself must have taken some time; surely Leia and the others had plenty of time to decide on a destination beforehand. The discovery of being tracked happens after they stop in the middle of nowhere. I can forgive it in Rogue One, when Andor basically tells K2SO to just fucking go, since the planet was literally falling apart around them, but not in this one. I can find an explanation for the Holdo Maneuver (another first), I can find explanations for other stuff that some call "plot holes", but not this one. So all I can ask of the writer, ie Rian Johnson, is: Is this the best you could come up with to create your conflict? And, really, this is what disappointed a certain percentage of SW fans; not the lack of answers, or "wrong" answers to certain mysteries, but just the disregard of lore details they've so loved to explore in the past.

[Bastard of Bournemouth]

The essay is cogent and well written, but the writer seems to think that executing what I'd call the bare minimum requirements of story (character context, conflict and development) are somehow Oscar worthy feats. Of course, they have written a book on screenwriting and are friends with celebrated auteur Rian Johnson, so perhaps they're right.

Also, does everyone think a clear character arc for Rose has been established in this treatise? And if so, would you agree this plays out in the film? To state categorically: I have nothing against the actor (I think all the actors in TFA and the TLJ are good, with the exception of Carrie Fisher's daughter in the first scene of TLJ - CRINGE!) more that the role still seems to me to be an appendage POV. To labour a point here, this in no way justifies any abuse of the actor - of any kind - and the people who did that really do need some love and some peace to help them out of the holes they're in. I would also vehemently deny the character, or the casting of the actor, are symptomatic of a (yawn) 'sjw conspiracy', which is similarly deranged. 

[drawkcabi]

13 hours ago, Relic said:

TLJ cured me of my life long Star Wars addiction, so I'm grateful for its existence. 

If that's true than this shouldn't be painful to watch.

Me though, I'm going to go throw up.

[A True Kaniggit]

13 hours ago, Relic said:

TLJ cured me of my life long Star Wars addiction, so I'm grateful for its existence. 

I've heard many people who think they've thrown their Star Wars addiction relapse within the next two releases.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'm interested in what you feel the Lucas prequels added to the OT. Myself it took me a long time to not feel like Star Wars hadn't been utterly destroyed by the prequels on almost every level. From Midichlorians ruing the mythos of the Force, to thinking of Darth Vader as nothing but a whiney teenager under that cool black garb, the whole thing was a huge destruction of everything I had imagined growing up. 

I don’t really mind the midiclorian thing. I mean it’s already shown the force is attracted to certain people(I mean the Skywalker family has had 4 powerful force users in just 3 generations) midiclorians being a sort of genetic indicator for who has a lot of it seems acceptable.  We still aren’t told what exactly the force is, why it specifically targets certain individuals, all we are shown is that their some scientific way to see how strong it is in people.

Anakin’s journey throughout his journey I find could have been handled better. The love story was awkward and weird for most it’s duration  but not movie breaking imo. Not exactly angry that the genocidal cycborg wasn’t always a cool stoic throughout his entire life. I mean teenagers tend to be whiney, so Vader being such is ok in imo. Hell Luke whined too in ANH. And he didn’t have the baggage of being indoctrinated into a cult who actively tell you to repress all of your emotions. It’s interesting (for me at least), to see Anakin go from a fretful child, barely in control of his emotions to a dark master. I could also feel a little bit more sadness about Vader’s death because of the prequels. The man literally was never free until the very last moments of his life. He was born a slave of Tatooine, was basically a slave to the Jedi, and became a full on slave to Palpatine. And very interesting subversion on the chosen one narrative. Anakin was a child of prophecy. Typically children of prophecy tend to side with the “good” side in bringing balance. Anakin dipped his toes in both sides and nearly destroyed both sides. 

I do see(yes I know I’m not the first person to make the observation by a long shot) the end result to have been successful in giving more perspective on why Luke was able to succeed where the Jedi failed other than “he’s the chosen one”. Where the Jedi feared knowing about the ways of the Sith out of fear of corruption, they could not hope to adequately defend themselves, Luke had to confront the traces of his dark side. 

The empire was given more nuance in the prequels. Rather than it being as simple as an evil wizard having came along, and ruined everything, we see it wasn’t that much better before the dark wizard arrived on the scene, or more the problems the dark wizard used to get control already existed. The evil wizard in question demonstrates why he’s dangerous. It’s not his Sith powers. There was a very realistic path for the republic to have turned into the empire. It wasn’t just a simple thing of good v evil thing. The Jedi could be good at times, but see them lead slave armies, support a corrupt oligarchy, and try to launch a coup against a democraticly elected leader. 

And the prequels gave us Star Wars the clone wars(cartoon), which I found to be the best thing ever. 

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Rogue One, sure it has it's issues, but it felt connected to the OT, it made me excited and interested in the Star Wars universe again. Maybe I can say the same for Solo in some ways ( although I think that is a pretty bland and flawed movie).

It was connected towards the OT. But it didn’t enhance the experience of watching it for me. There’s hardly any parallels between the actions of any character in the movie to the OT.  It doesn’t really flesh out the world that much besides introducing some new technology. You can actually watch episodes 1-4 and see character development for Obi-wan. We see him make very human mistakes,  arrogantly conflating the Jedi(his cult) being in power with “the force being balanced”, see him care more about rigidity and following the will of his superiors rather than what’s truly the Jedi way, see him mishandle the teaching of a boy who he could not try to empathize with, and by time of ANH we see a man having been humbled from his past mistakes. The prequels added to the character of people in the original trilogy. Rogue one doesn’t.   It  could have with the rebel alliance. I kinda thought the talk of extremist factions fighting the empire would lead to somewhere interesting. But it didn’t. We’re given little context for why he’s particularly worse than the other rebel factions opposing the empire. Quite frankly, dissapointed, they didn’t delve deeper into the nooks and crannies of how dirty waving a rebellion could be. It’s briefly touched upon but not really elaborated on truly. Individual members who we will never see in the OT are said to have done some shady things in support of the cause-but not the central leadership of the rebellion, as a whole the group appears in the movies as still the ragtag group of heroes that had some bad apples.

Fine movie. Weak prequel. 

[Jace, Extat]

Finally saw 'Ex Machina'.

I'm fucking furious.

For years I've heard about how great Domhall Gleeson and Oscar Isaacs were, but had never really seen them in anything other than Star Wars, Harry Potter, and X-Men.

I thought I resented Disney for squandering the talent in and around their Star Wars films before, but as I sat there taking in the delightful direction/acting/mixing something in my heart felt betrayed.

This charge falls mostly on The Last Jedi and Rogue One, The Force Awakens is pretty competently handled by the extraordinarily average J.J. Abrams while Solo... I just don't give enough fucks about to break down.

I am actually upset right now (and very grateful that I have a life where I can let something like this upset me).

I was sitting on my sofa with a warm buzz about my entire body after the film ended. Just short of giddy at having seen an actual piece of art. But while I mentally revisited my favorite scenes, which are almost exclusively just two people talking, the image of Hux on his knees with his face a sickly shade of green gasping "long live the Supreme Leader" kept interrupting my bask.

The prequels squandered a shitload of good talent, however I'm not a massive Ewan McGregor aficionado and Samuel L Jackson's so out of place as to be almost impossible to analyze.

But Gleeson and Isaacs turned in probably two of the top-10 acting performances I've ever seen (we'll keep in mind recency bias so avoid being definitive) in the same goddamn movie.

I feel sick.

[Relic]

21 hours ago, Ran said:

The prequels didn't do that already?

 

Even in darkest hours of the prequels (somewhere around the middle of AoTC) I still had the vague hope of Timothy Zahn's story to look forward to in the future, when my favorite characters would make a triumphant return to the screen. That's all gone now, Luke is dead or a ghost, and I just don't care anymore. Me and the Wookie are leaving.