After all the great work Rian did with The Last Jedi, Abrams comes back and pisses (sorry retcons) all over his film, and in doing so earns one of the lowest ratings of any Star Wars of all time.
Hope all you ‘fans’ are happy.
what great work did Johnson do in TLJ? was it the cheesy jokes between Hux and Poe? was it the pointless Canto Bight story arc? Broom Boy ? Making Luke drink titty milk? the space chase until the resistance ran out of fuel ? killing off Luke because he was tIrEd?
TLJ was an abomination , TROS was at least a fun movie even though the plot was rushed and rather poor.
The Last Jedi Metacritic 85%
Rise of Skywalker Metacritic 54%
You admit the plot was poor.
Need i say more?
Yeh , you might want to check the audience scores , all higher than TLJ
shareSo you praise TFA for having a high audience score and Critical score but then say the critical score can be ignored for TROS? That is pretty convenient. Why, because it doesn't fit your narrative? Or in your view the only time you will admit a film is bad is if it has the combination of low audience score and low critical rating? I see you leaning on these scores too much to get out of making arguments for why these films aren't objectively bad.
Also there are numerous reports out there that since late December Rotten Tomatoes froze the audience score, the audience score percentage has not moved since the first 20,000 reviews, that is suspicious. imdb has it at 6.9 score (pretty low), Google users is at 75% (that is very low for Google score). I do not think I saw a single positive review on it in all youtube. Even TLJ has some crazy (woke) SJW's praising it. TROS didn't even get that.
I might be in the minority of people that saw the ST for what it was when TFA came out. But now you are the minority that is still closing your eyes to reality. The ST as a whole sucked, it is even worse than the some of its parts and is a complete disjointed mess.
True it was on a whole underwhelming, but at least we had The Last Jedi.
shareDon't get me wrong, I hated TLJ as well; but I was not as offended by it as I was TFA or TROS (which undermine the OT themes, mythos, lore, and continuity). My opinion bringing back the emperor or letting a untrained force user mind trick is far worse than Luke milking a sea cow.
Also I would say JJ was a better director than TLJ, JJ did a better job of hiding the weaknesses of the lack of chemistry between the lead characters and the fact that Daisey Ridley is a bad actress (at least in this series).
TROS has many flaws , the plot is weak in the sense that they had no idea how to close this trilogy off so got desperate and brought back the Emperor and tried to fix the god awful plot points of the TLJ, that said i still enjoyed TROS , its not perfect but its not bad , its your typical action packed sci fi adventure , the ones i used to enjoy in my youth.
shareThat is just it though, Star Wars had deeper themes and mythos than just a typical action packed sci-fi adventure. It was that and more. the ST trilogy, especially TFA and TROS removed that deeper aspect of the series and reduced it to a mindless action sci-fi.
Bringing back the emperor as a desperate move to 'correct' plot point (which was from TFA as much as TLJ) is a perfect example of the type of insult the ST trilogy pays to the OT. It specifically undermines Vader's redemption and the victory of the OT. It steals the victory from Han, Luke, Leia, Chewie, C-3P0, R2-D2, and Lando, renders Vader's redemptive act pointless just so it can be 'redone' (but right this time) all over again. It is actually crazily insulting to the OT. it baffles me that those that are fans of the originals would at all accept any of this as tolerable.
The reception to a film determines where it stands in history. Whether you agree or disagree with the reception is irrelevant. Overall tfa is considered a good film by the majority.
shareCorrect , and I understand why the copied the same formula as ANH, especially after the prequels , it has nostalgic elements but also introduces Star Wars to a new generation of fans
sharethen they should have billed it as a remake not a sequel;
"copied the same formula as ANH, especially after the prequels , it has nostalgic elements"
It does a lot more than just copy the formula and has nostalgic; it is an almost frame by frame copy. You are being unreasonably forgiving of that and completely underselling this point. And TFA undermines the lore, continuity and mythos of star wars to accomplish the goal of 'copying the formula' and relying on nostalgia. No fan of the OT should overlook this, unless the OT was never anything more than space battles and laser swords to them. In which case I would say you never really cared about the lore of Star Wars. If you did you would not forgive Han being a dead beat dad and regressed smuggler or an untrained force user pulling mind trick out of her ass.
And also it is clear your 'love' of TFA is not because it is a good movie in of itself; but because you just hated the prequels so much. I hate the prequels to, but I will not let my judgement and ability to think critically and objectively to be clouded by that.
That is not accurate at all. Films that have received great praise upon release can slip into obscurity. See movies like Crash or Traffic as example. Hailed at the time as masterpieces but completely forgotten 5 years later. Fast and Furious movies were always well received and praised; does that make them good films?
shareFast and the furious films receive decent acclaim. Key word there decent. Nowhere are those films on a best films ever list now are they? A movie such as Schindlers List, Shawshank redemption, Godfather, and Lawrence of Arabia are all considered some of the best films of all time. The reception was not decent it was overwhelmingly positive. The reception to Crash was not that strong. You have a point with Traffic. Even so though it is still overall considered a good film by the majority. Regardless if someone likes the films I listed or agrees with the reception is irrelevant. It doesn't change where they stand in film history.
Tfa is seen as a better film than the prequels by the majority. Is it an all time great nope but as it stands overall it is seen as a good film. You disliking it or thinking it's bad has no bearing on the majority. The mandalorian as well as rogue one beat the prequels in reception as well. So overall even though the OT remains untouched the Disney films overall won the match up. Their duds are solo, ROS, and Last Jedi. Their winners are tfa, rogue one and the mandalorian.
TFA is also not on any best films ever list. All the movies you listed received great acclaim at the time and then did not fade. So they are not the best examples.
The point I am making is the praise TFA got is not equal with what it still gets. It is not considered anywhere near the level of the other films you listed in retrospect, so it got inflated praise at the time of release and some have become delusional about that inflated rating.
Actually after TLJ and ROTJ I would not say it is a majority anymore; it is about a 50/50 split. Besides you are comparing the entire PT with only the first film of the ST. Compare instead TPM to TFA. My opinion, they both sucked hard, but I was more insulted by TFA (which in my view violated the Lore and mythos of the franchise). and TPM has at least a few redeeming features, such as the music; the pod racing scene, parts of the lightsaber duel, the combination of special effect with practical enhanced by CGI. There are practical effect items in the film people thought were CGI, the practical effects were so good it caused an uncanny valley effect.
The majority liking something has no bearing on the actual quality either. The majority can be wrong about something, especially when that thing was designed to be manipulative to the mass audiences in the first place.
I already stated tfa wasn't on a best of list. I was showing you that it's overall better received than the prequels.
Again i never stated it was anywhere near the films I listed. It is however better received than the prequels.
I'm comparing their prime films against prime. The prime prequel is revenge of the Sith. The prime Disney Star Wars product is tfa, rogue one and the mandalorian. Tpm and AOTC are well beneath any of the prime films. Last Jedi, Solo and ROS, are the worst among the Disney films. You may feel tpm is better than tfa, however you are in the minority as it stands the majority thinks tfa is better. Only one film of the prequels is considered good that is ros. Tfa, rogue one and the mandalorian are considered good. Great no but overall positive. That's a better batting average than what the prequels achieved. The mandalorian is almost considered great.
If you personally think Lawrence of Arabia is bad it has no bearing on the film's spot in history. I agree the majority can be wrong but in the end majority rules where something will be placed. I personally do not even think the original star wars films are great films. I know I'm in the minority but in my book they are overrated and overhyped. I think the story telling can be very amateurish at times. Yeah Leia being Luke's sister was totally planned from the start... It's why they played tonsil hockey...
" I personally do not even think the ooriginal star wars films are great films"
you know, you have this in common with almost every TFA defender. It seems to me the reason why TFA gets such a pass from so many is they never really 'loved' star wars to begin with and only just hated the prequels.
Comparing TFA to ROTS is not a fair comparison either. ROTS was the last of the prequel, TFA was the first. ROTS depending on TPM for its 'set up' and IMO succeeded in filling in many holes and was a passable film (not great but enjoyable). TROS depended on TFA (almost attempted to negate TLJ) and was an utter disaster. It was always going to be because TFA was a terrible 'set up' film that contained nothing but empty mystery boxes. JJ admits this is what he does. There was never anything in the damn box. the guy is a snake oil salesman, too many of you bought it and now seem to be in denial.
Interesting, I feel the reason Revenge of the Sith gets a free pass is because of how terrible the first two were. Since the first two were so bad the expectations were lowered. I personally do not even think that film is good. Also I actually do not care for TFA either. I was just pointing out to you if you crunch the numbers tfa is seen as a better film by the majority.
I was comparing them because Revenge of the Sith has the highest reception among the prequels. With TPM and AOFTC it is not even close. Also yep you can say it did end better than the Disney trilogy. However here is the thing, all the prequels were done by one person. The Disney series alternated between JJ and Rian. Harder to fill in holes or gaps you did not create. Third I personally do not feel Revenge of the Sith filled them in good myself. How about Padme dying in child birth? How did Leia remember her mom when her mom literally died the day she was born? Anakin's turn to the dark side was terribly forced.
They had dilly dallied the first two films so they had to rush it. Palpatine tells him to kill Dooku he says I shouldn't then gets told do it then does. Wow he really had to twist his arm to do that didn't he? Not to mention we get a cameo of Vader? You know the guy everyone was waiting all that time to see? I haven't even brought up Hayden's or Natalie's terrible acting.
I like Rogue One and the Mandalorian ok. I do not think they are amazing but good/competent. Everything else from Star Wars I have never been impressed by. Even the original series I think is good but nothing special. Overrated in my opinion.
Bottom line though Disney had more success than Lucas did with the prequels as evident by the reception. I think this has made you salty that you are in the minority. One prequel is considered good one. Disney hit 3 out 6 of their products. Lucas hit 1/3. What is the better batting average? So no it is not split down the middle incorrect bud sorry. Even if you take away the Mandalorian it would be 2/5. Which is still a better batting average.
There is some validity to what you say about Revenge of the Sith. I do not think it was a good film, but it was at least dumb fun with some satisfying moments. But those moments might be only satisfying when seen in contrast to TPM and AOTC.
What do you mean by reception? initially TPM had a great reception upon release, I am old enough to remember. It took years for that to start to drop.
It is not a good defense of the film to suggest that it not having 1 person excuses the disjointed mess that it ended up being.
Disney did not strike good with 3 out of 6; They had huge success with 1 (TFA) mediocre with Rogue one; everything else has been either bashed by fans, critics or both. Solo is the first Star Wars movie to officially lose money.
"Even the original series I think is good but nothing special. Overrated in my opinion."
Like I said, you have that in common with most TFA defenders, the only defense is "the OT wasn't that good anyway". This is fallacy, not argument.
"I think this has made you salty that you are in the minority."
Being the minority does not make me salty, everyone liking a shit movie with out ever providing a single objective reason or rebuttal to criticism yet still claiming it is good because "the majority say so" is what is making me salty. The refusal to acknowledge the obvious writing failures of TFA, and to carry on in delusions while at the same time evading answering any of the charges of those failures is making me salty. People hiding behind the numbers as their only validation is making me salty. The inability or unwillingness to think critically and objectively in the viewing of this particular film is making me salty. I would acknowledge that I might be the one that was not being objective but no one has ever even attempted a valid rebuttal to the many criticisms of TFA. It has been all sophistry.
Yeah I get your point but in my book it gets praised mainly because it wasn't as awful as the previous films.
Reception meaning what fans vote it as. Is the reception negative or positive? I do remember the reception being good and dipping. However tfa has been out now just shy of five years, by this time tpm had dipped far more and faster than tfa did.
I did not say not having 1 person do it excuses the mess it became. I said its harder to fill in holes or gaps you didn't create. I openly stated the prequel series ended stronger did you miss that?
No they had success with 3. We've gone over tfa. Rogue one was not mediocre it was a success. I like this mentality you guys have where as every star wars film has to match or outdo the predecessor in order to be considered a success. Did rogue one have the success tfa did nope but it still made a good profit. You could argue yeah but it could have made more. That's not the point though. The thing we are discussing is if it was a success or not and rogue one was a success. Empire strikes back made far less than a new hope i guess by that logic empire was a mediocre success... See how silly that is?
Anyways the mandalorian got critical acclaim and fans have rated it very high. Same with rogue one and tfa. The other 3 yep overall the reception was negative. Which is why I said 3 out of 6. So no you are objectively wrong here.
So people owe you an explanation on why they consider something good? It needs to be to your liking for someone to be able to have an opinion on these films? I need to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. I will gladly share but first you need to able to acknowledge objective facts. Disney did strike success with 3 out of 6. Tfa is not the only successful thing they made, it is the most successful but rogue one and mandalorian are successes.
The online ratings of TFA vs tpm are not a fair comparison because once the votes were cast they were relatively set. Most people do not go back and change them after years go by. By the time most people actually voted on Tpm it was years later after the fans reception of it dipped. It would be interesting to see what a new poll of TFA would look like today
Both the rating and reception of rogue one was lukewarm at best. I do not count that as success for a Star Wars film. It only made a little money and had slightly above average rating.
Mandalorian is too soon to count as a success. In has not made any real money yet and has had many mixed reviews. At this point only 1 film was a success and maybe 2 are just not failures. But all of that depends on how we define success. Rogue one does not meet my definition and mandaolorian has not met it yet at least
No they don’t need to unless they are defending the film. If they just say something like “yeah it wasn’t very good but I enjoyed it” I could not have a problem with it because it is a 100% subjective opinion. However they try to counter the criticism then I will expect a legitimate rebuttal to my list of reasons it was bad. If I say something’s bad for a list of reasons and someone counters with “no it’s not because I and others like it” that is not sufficient reasoning. They have to have actual counter arguments for why the criticism is invalid. My problem with TFA defenders is they simply do not provide sufficient justification for why the criticisms should be ignored and less reason for liking the film. Often times they simply like it because “it was better then the prequels”. Which is also not sufficient reasoning to say something is good
Ratings can change overtime. TFA used to be on the top 250 of imdb. It now is not on that list. Titanic was one of the biggest box office successes in cinema history. Gone with the Wind an old film still has a secure spot on the top 250, same goes for Jurassic Park. All of which were huge box office smashes at the time they were made. Even when adjusting for inflation these films rank up there high when it comes to smashing the box office. Funny thing is Titanic is not on the top 250 anymore, where as Gone with the Wind and Jurassic Park are. Nice try but no.
The rating for Revenge of the Sith was lukewarm at best as well. It does not matter if you personally count that as success for a Star Wars film it still is a success. The definition of success is
the attainment of popularity or profit.Rogue One did this very thing, therefore it fit the definition. So objectively it is a success.
"TFA used to be on the top 250 of imdb. It now is not on that list"
THis is an argument in my favor, it is some proof that the film is worse than it was originally rated and only after time has it decreased. How many more thousands of raters would rate it the same today as they did at first, how many actually went back and amended their score?
"Rogue One did this very thing, therefore it fit the definition. So objectively it is a success. "
The rating is only slightly above average (at about 80% average) and made just over 1 Billion. For any other film this is a success, for a Star Wars film the results should have been higher. But Rogue One was also the best film Disney produced, so I don't want to call it a failure either. But the fact that Star Wars films expect to make more is also objectively true. And to call it a success makes it sound like a 'roaring' success, which it was not. I will agree it was a success but only mild one.
"Point me to this datal. "
I don't think you used the word datal properly, what date are you looking for? I was going off many of the youtube reviewers I listen to and trust. But I just looked up the actual average scores of the Mandalorian, and my god is this overrated. It is averaging over 95%, if I hadn't seen the first half of the season I would be lead to believe this is the greatest show ever made. Do you not think these rating are over inflated (for whatever reason)? I do you think it is appropriately rated as the highest ever?
"Notice I go by the dictionary definition not my personal subjective opinion when it comes to what makes something a success."
Definition alone does not suffice in this case; there are levels of success; such as how much does the product meet the expectation. Words are often more than just their definition. The definition is a baseline; ever hear of the concept of defining something in your own words?
continued below...
It does not work in your favor at all. It is proof that it lowered over time but in the end it still has a better rating than any of the prequels. How am I supposed to know how many people went back and amended their score? The point is at anytime these people can go back and do that. Some will some will not. Just like how some people will vote something a ten or a 1 before even seeing it. As it stands it has a better rating than the prequels.
See again no. You do not get to dismiss a success simply because of the brand that it is. You people want to discredit success simply because it did not blow expectations away. That is not what success is. I never said it was a roaring success but it was a success. Whether it is mild or roaring it still counts. Empire Strikes Back, and Spider-man 2 made less than their predecessors. Both are considered the prime in their franchise.
I do not care what some youtuber has to say. Again they do not dictate where a film places in history. See when you look up the average scores they are exceptionally high. So when you said it got lukewarm or mixed reviews I am like what are you talking about? Next time refer me to the youtubers and do not make a general statement. See but I do not play this game because I can point to youtubers who loved this film as well. The overall data by audiences is much more fair and a way bigger number. Overall the Mandalorian is received greatly right now. Whether I agree with the ratings or not is irrelevant. It is very highly received which proves my point here.
Definition does suffice you just do not want it to.
Continued below.
You missed my point. People did not bulk rate TPM open release because the internet was not a thing. Had it been the rating would be much much higher and then slowly lower over time but never drop as low as it did. THe bulk of the TPM rating took place after time had gone by and the negative views of it were the norm. Which took about 5 to 10 years to happen. Now TFA came out when the internet is a normal outlet for millions to cast their votes. Not many amend them after the initial review. What do you think TFA's score would be if noon rated until today? Do you think it would still be higher than TPM? I think it would be about the same rating around low 60% average, but that is a guess based on youtube retrospectives and people I converse with; the favorable view of it is very much diminished, similar to how the favorable view of TPM diminished 5 years later.
". I never said it was a roaring success"
Yes but your comments suggest that is your view of it. But again what do we mean by success? Initial box office? critical reception? audience opinion? combination? What about retrospective opinions? Do those count for anything?
"Both are considered the prime in their franchise"
YES, but years later. Is TFA considered "Prime" today?
"I do not care what some youtuber has to say"
Why, this is a fallacy called appeal to authority. I did not say "youtuber" I said "youtuber REVIEWERS" plural, not singular. I listen to a wide range of them, some who I disagree with and some I agree with. They are often far more 'accurate' in their reviews than 'authentic' critics and provide a more rational view of movies than average movie goers. To completely blow them off as irrelevant says something about your inflated view of your own opinion.
"Next time refer me to the youtubers and do not make a general statement."
okay here is a list of ones that I listen to a respect: Critical Drinker, MauLer, David V Stewart, Literature Devil, Nerdrotic, smudboy...
Imdb launched in 1990. The Phantom Menace came out in 1998. I do not deny that the internet is much bigger than it was back then. Imdb however had plenty of users at that time who rated the Phantom Menace. I personally think even if rated today it would be received higher than the Phantom Menace. I do not care for either films but I think that would be the outcome. I personally feel that your hatred for tfa clouds your judgment. I think you want the prequels to be rated higher.
No they do not. To me a success is either a success or it is not. I do not play the game of well the expectations of it because of what brand it is. I admit no Rogue One did not blow the doors off like people would expect Star Wars would. That does not mean that it was not a success though. Box office, critical reception and audience reception. All of which Rogue One succeeded in. Of youtubers which I do not care about? Nope I would not say so.
Hard to tell if TFA is considered the prime of it's franchise today. Rogue One could be argued against it as well. Mandalorian I will wait on but I think that will be in the running for prime as well. With the original trilogy and the prequels it is pretty unanimous what is considered the best in the series. Empire of the OT, and Revenge of the Sith of the prequels. Disney series has TFA, Rogue One and the Mandlorian.
Oh there are plenty of youtube reviewers I listen to as well. Thing is I am crunching the numbers here from the audience and professional critics as I stated above. I listen to YMS, Chris Stuckmann, Jeremy Jahns, Ralphthemoviemaker etc.
I think Critical Drinker is absolute trash. The guy who considered Joker a great film? Yeah no thanks. Joker is a cliche poor man's Scorsese flick. It is basically the poor man's King Of Comedy and Taxi Driver.
"See but I do not play this game because I can point to youtubers who loved this film as well."
Who still has a favorible review of TFA in retrospective? Star Wars Only? His stuff is almost shill at this point.
"The overall data by audiences is much more fair and a way bigger number."
If there was a new poll today and 100,000 + answered do you think TFA would still be over 80% favorable? I don't
"Definition does suffice you just do not want it to. "
That is a ridiculous statement. Do you think words like "Justice" "honor", "morality" etc can be limited to their definition alone? A word like "success" is more than its definition and can be interpreted in various situations depending on context. Context is the key here. 1 billion dollars for a Star Wars movie is not a success, not with how strong that IP was. Each film should have cleared 1.5 billion each. They should have at least out performed Marvel, which was not nearly as established and part of the culture.
How am I supposed to know their retrospective view if they have not given it?
This is speculation. I do not humor hypothetical scenarios.
Who determines what a success is for a Star Wars film? This seems like you are attempting to fit your agenda here. Like I said before you have this idea in your head of how it should perform. You take A Star Wars film and put the expectation as ok 1.5 billion. It grosses a billion which fyi is still a profit you say well it did not meet what I thought it should have or what people expected therefore it is not a success. It does not work that way bud I am sorry. Was Empire expected to outdo a New Hope? Answer that question for me.
"This is speculation. I do not humor hypothetical scenarios. "
you mean like the B.S. speculation of the plot holes after TFA came out?
"Who determines what a success is for a Star Wars film?"
Context determines it idiot. If marvel films pull nearly 1 billion each and Star Wars is a stronger IP (which it was until this shit came out) each film should have done better. Context is everything.
"It grosses a billion which fyi is still a profit you say "
Gross does not equal profit. After all expenses and and cinema's taking about half the sales, only TFA made good money, the rest barily turned a profit, that is a disaster for arguable the strongest Franchise in cinema history. And all of this is deflection anyway.
"Empire expected to outdo a New Hope? Answer that question for me."
No, Sequels at that time were never expected to outmake the originals. that is a modern phenomenon. Shows how much you know. Lucas himself at the time was aiming to make a profit through merchandising and not the films. So yeah, not only do you deflect, you make poor deflections riddled in ignorance.
Profit is still profit isn't it smart one?
Lol you missed my point. Spider-man 2 did not outgross the first and is considered the best of the Raimi Spider-man series. I knew you would bring up the time argument for Empire which is why I deliberately brought up Spider-man 2. I knew you would pull that, so what is the excuse for Spider-man?
"When someone's mind is made up about a film there is no convincing them to like or dislike it."
I am an exceptionally reasonable person. If someone makes a good point I acknowledge it and if the point refutes my own enough I reconsider my position. The problem with TFA is there has now been 5 years of the constant bad defenses and fallacious non-arguments used to refute criticism. There has been very little merit based arguments in favor of the film itself that I have seen. and I have been looking for 5 years. 5 years of the sophistry over and over. It would take a compelling argument at this point to convince me otherwise.
" Notice you have not defended the criticisms against the original Star Wars series, you humped right past my points. "
That is because you did not make one; you simply said it was overrated. That is not an criticism; what makes it overrated?
"How is that any different from what you accused TFA defenders of doing?"
Okay for this we have to break down an example; such as, I say that Rey is too powerful of a character that violates the established lore of Star Wars by being able to do too many force powers at too high of a level without training or sufficient reason. The plot bends around her to ensure she stays the focus and takes precedent over other plot points again without any explanation or reason. The characters around her like, respect or revere her far too fast and again without reason. She has skills and personality completely contrary to her background, such as speaking droid (which humans/living creatures until her could not do) and wookie inexplicable. She is far too posh and polished and functionally social despite the background as a lone scavenger. Now do you have counter arguments to this besides something like 'you just hate female leads' or 'but Luke was overpowered too'?
Well in my experience the people who dislike this film have no interest in having a diplomatic conversation. They want to hate on it and bully you into agreeing with their view. They act as if it is a fact that it is a terrible film and no one is allowed to think otherwise.
No remember I called the storytelling and writing amateurish at times. Leia being Luke's sister was not planned from the start. It is why Lucas has done his best to remove that kiss scene between Leia and Luke. Ewoks overtaking the empire that hunted down the Jedi seems awfully convenient. I do not want to be cliche because this has been beaten to death but that seemed they did that because they had no creative way to write a defeat for the empire. How do Leia and Luke communicate through telepathy when it took the all powerful Vader being told by the emperor in empire to do so? Leia had no force training at all.
I agree on Rey being overpowered. You act as if I love tfa I do not honestly. I view it no different than the original Star Wars. Simple popcorn fun.
"They act as if it is a fact that it is a terrible film and no one is allowed to think otherwise."
I am okay with someone liking it is as long as they have reason; but often they attempt to rebut criticism with fallacy; which is what you did as well. and that is frustrating.
All your complaints come ROTJ alone, and almost everyone agrees with these criticisms; no one shies away or tries to make excuses like they do with TFA.
"How do Leia and Luke communicate through telepathy when it took the all powerful Vader being told by the emperor in empire to do so? Leia had no force training at all. "
What are you talking about, Vader was speaking to Luke; Leia clearly was just getting a feeling about it and it was Luke reaching out to her; there was no previous indication she needed to be force sensitive to 'hear' him.
"You act as if I love tfa I do not honestly. I view it no different than the original Star Wars. Simple popcorn fun."
Exactly, you were never that into Star War beyond it being a mindless popcorn fun flick. There was much more to it than that; there was themes, archetypes, adventure, lore, mysticism, mythos, great characters, a solid plot that even when elements were contrived (such as Vader being Luke's father) the writing was strong enough to make it feel in place and organic (not forced). At least the 1st 2 films had this; ROTJ started to slip but the rest have been rather crap but TFA was a whole new level of bad.
Lol a reason can be anything man. Someone could say I love TFA because I love the visual aesthetic. They do not need to provide anything other than that for it to be a reason. You get angry if they do not have a detailed novel as to why they enjoy it.
Oh that is a load of crap. Plenty of people have disputed those points and attempted to deflect when confronted with those weaknesses I pointed out.
Getting a feeling to me equates to lazy writing. I assumed it was that way because Luke who had minor Force training could hear Ben where as no one else could. Han could not, Leia did not, nor did anyone else. This should have been made more clear if what you say is true. The Kiss scene was from Empire not Return of the Jedi. So no my complaints do not all come from Return of the Jedi.
Great characters? Yeah nope not in my book. Themes? Yeah like in many other films? The writing was strong enough is you indicating that it was not that strong. Basically it was good enough to be entertaining. The acting was always stilted and forced. There are other films which are far better made. I honestly would love it if there were no more Star Wars films made. I am tired of that overrated, overhyhped franchise.
"Someone could say I love TFA because I love the visual aesthetic."
To which I would reply, "what about the visual aesthetics was good? Because a copy paste job from ANH?"
"They do not need to provide anything other than that for it to be a reason."
They do if they want to justify it. And if they have no justification then it was poor reasoning in the first place.
"You get angry if they do not have a detailed novel as to why they enjoy it."
I get angry at crap reasoning and deflections that distract from the merits based argument on the quality of the film, such as what you are doing now.
"Oh that is a load of crap. Plenty of people have disputed those points and attempted to deflect when confronted with those weaknesses I pointed out. "
Okay, where? like you are doing now? Again this was terrible reasoning.
"Getting a feeling to me equates to lazy writing."
umm, no; it was in the delivery and the framing not the writing. The writing said something like, "Leia gets a feeling" it is the framing of the scene and the acting that deliver that. Do you know nothing about film?
" I assumed"
You do way too much of that.
"Luke who had minor Force training could hear Ben where as no one else could. Han could not, Leia did not, nor did anyone else"
what the hell are you talking about, it was perfectly clear only Luke heard Ben because Ben was only talking to Luke.
"Great characters? Yeah nope not in my book. .."
and here you go, the old 'TFA was a fine film because they were never great to begin with' fallacy. You now came full circle and represent everything I despise about this film and its defenders. Not one good argument made but pretenses at good argument riddled with deflection and fallacies culminating in bashing of the original that you were never a fan of in the first place. Thanks for proving my point yet again about the TFA defender and their incredible lazy and poor justification for rating TFA highly. Now move along, I am done.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
He's likely rather sitting in smug satisfaction that ROTS did even worse than TLJ.
He and his media groupies can still get fucked. He did to SW the equivalent of throwing shit on the Mona Lisa and calling it art. Out of poseurious praise for him, and/or contempt for the fandom, the "critics" all gushed over it. The fandom made it quite clear they felt otherwise.
I still contend retconning TLJ was the worst thing for ROTS - the fandom already walked away. TLJ ruined the DT beyond repair. ROTS only succeeded in pissing off the remaining vocal minority that actually liked TLJ.
I feel kind of bad for JJ - I wonder how much he really wanted to clean up Rian's mess, how much his hands were tied by suits wanting to ROTS to play it safe with fanservice and retconning TLJ, and how much he realized he was going to be the fall guy for its certain failure.
Are you in cloud cuckoo land? The Last Jedi was far superior than any Abrams Star Wars film. The professional objective critics agree.
I trust them far more than rabid fanboys.
So you trust people who get paid to see movies, more than people who pay to see the movies.
The former getting paid, at that, by media companies often owned by the same conglomerates owning the movie company, theaters, ticket storefronts, etc.
'kay.
Yes of course i do.
The same critics that you think were bought by Disney to praise Last Jedi, slated Rise of Skywalker. So you’re saying Disney didn’t pay them for that film?
Do you see how ridiculous that conspiracy is.
Do you see how imperceptive you yourself are?
Disney may not literally pay critics but they can sure cut them and their publications' access to screenings if displeased. Fandango owns a significant chunk of RottenTomatoes, for another example. You think "objective" critics aren't incentivized to thumb the scale for a big release when a ticket sale company signs part of their paycheck?
This isn't even anything new or unique to Disney. Independent consumer reviews for any product have always been important.
The likely reason critics felt free to be honest about TROS is everyone knew by then the whole trilogy was being poorly received and they weren't risking a future gravy train.
Maybe they just liked Last Jedi more than Rise of Skywalker? Liked many other people. Take the tinfoil hat off.
shareAudience ratings matter more than clueless critics. Imdb rating for last two sequels both 7.0, TFA 7.9! First two prequels are 6.5.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls024732224/
Not sure about clueless since they are professionals.
shareJBran it’s a known fact that critics hate fanboys and they new TLJ was going to piss the fanboys boys off so they deliberately rated it high. It’s very similar to YOU. I bet you never particular liked TLJ but you enjoy praising it because you enjoy trolling (as others have pointed out) the fans.
Regardless, here is a professional review from ET CANADA. Listen to what he had to say on LIVE TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ8ir66M5XU
That’s a load of crap because Last Jedi was genuinely better than the other 2 films in the new trilogy. Oh 1 review ey. So disregard all of the other professional reviews. I think you Last Jedi haters are just embarrassed about the fact that it is the best of the new 3.
share
Take the discussion to The Last Jedi thread troll.
BTW Bripod that review was spot on good to see a critic with the balls to go against Disney. Guess they can’t pay out every critic. 😉
If they paid critics then why was Rise of Skywalker universally panned? That’s what you trolls try to ignore.
share
The paying critics was a joke. However I agree what Bripod said about critics not liking fanboys (just read some of Scott Mendelsons reviews on Forbes.com) and the critics obviously saw all the retcons going on for the fanboys in TROS so of course they will hate it.
Anyway this is all getting very old and boring but I’m glad you’re having fun.
That’s fair enough, i just don’t agree with Bripod’s ideas about fanboys. They don’t care, they just rate films. I’m not having fun i’m simply sticking up for a film that’s all.
share