They could still remake new sequels in the future, but have squandered the availability of the original cast. - Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) Discussion

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

You pretend ? So what about the people that did like it ?

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 5 years ago

Then enjoy.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

People that liked the full sequel trilogy should have their heads examined. Even if you liked one film; the disjointed recon from film to film would mean you could not possible enjoy all 3. If you did you probably have something wrong with your head.

I get liking TFA; but it is a dumb fun action film that set the stage for a disastrous sequel trilogy. It is the only film where they even had a chance to bring back the entire OT cast and make something of it. Instead you get stupid incompetent Leia, Deadbeat Dad regressed smuggler (semi senile) Han, and completely inexplicable absent Luke. They should have just not brought the OT cast back if that is how they treated them. But TFA was not about telling a good story, it was about creating as much nostalgia as possible to milk the 'feels' and wallets of a mindless consumer horde.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Don’t disagree

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yeah there are some people out there that will accept anything. I had this co-worker that loved TFA, then Loved TLJ and was super excited for TROS. He also loved Justice League, so what does that tell you. I told him once he didn't have to like everything; that it is okay to think critically and not just mindlessly consume. To which he replied something along the lines of, not thinking critically and just enjoying things made him happy. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Me, I cannot turn my brain off like that. And I refuse to give money to shit quality products, especially when I feel the producers are making metaphorical slaps to my face.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

No I do not talk like a person who thinks film school makes me smarter than someone else. I openly said there are people who could know even more than me but you are not that person and igt is obvious with your ignorant claims. School does teach you things. As I have stated before I am getting hands on work on cinematography on work with independent films. So no hands and work and networking. I have worked on some films. Your ignorance is dismissed.

Does Schindler's List follow the true story to a T? Careful now do you know your history? I can point out things which were different in the film than in real life. It is a true inspiring story but a film can be completely fictional while making a political statement and still be considered a classic. Forrest Gump is one.

Can you not make any more baseless assumptions?

Thanks for proving my point that all the blind Disney haters are not objective at all. You want people to be fair when it comes to films so long as it coincides with what you think. This is proven by the fact that you judge films without seeing them.

Lol it is the truth though. You rely on youtubers to feed you your opinion based on movies you have never seen. Lol go ahead and report me. I am not the one who used foul language nor the poor grammar you have displayed that is a crime in and of itself. Fyi I could have reported you long ago I however am not an entitled person who cries to the administrators for help because I disagree with someone.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"No I do not talk like a person who thinks film school makes me smarter than someone else"

Yes you do; you are just so full of yourself you can't see it.

" but you are not that person and igt is obvious with your ignorant claims. "

I do know more than you; you don't even know the effect increase frame rates have when combined with high performance cameras. Your opinion is DISMISSEd.

"Does Schindler's List follow the true story to a T"

I have read the book before seeing the film; I am not too familiar with the 'true' story but from what I understand the book follows it pretty closely and the film is a faithful adaptation. What was the political messaging the film was 'trying to say' according to you? Nazi's are bad and killing people because of there ethnicity is wrong? That is not an example of political messaging

"Can you not make any more baseless assumptions?"

There are not baseless. And you prove them as being accurate assumption with every post. I call it perfectly every time. You are everything I claim TFA defenders are.

"Thanks for proving my point that all the blind Disney haters are not objective at all."

I like most disney films and liked almost all the MCU films. So you are wrong. THIS IS A BASELESS GENERALIZED ASSUMPTION; mine was an accurate hypothesis. Maybe if you had 1 gram of logic in your head you would know the difference.

"I am not the one who used foul language"

because you are a pansy that is purposefully trying to egg me on so you can report me when I blow up. I have seen it a billion times now; you all do this same thing. Argue in bad faith until you piss people of then report them for swearing so pathetic, and only a way to try to use the boards policies against people kicking your ass in debate.

"the poor grammar you"

English is not my first language and I am often typing in very much haste and don't really take time to proofread. Got any other actual arguments to make instead of pathetic complaints about grammar?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"I could have reported you long ago I however am not an entitled person who cries to the administrators for help because I disagree with someone."

I have no way of knowing if you did or not already. So many of you have done this same thing; pretend to argue then just obfuscate, then use passive aggressive insults; then when I call you out for being the condescending assholes you are you turn around and report me. Seriously, I have been reported by you TFA cowards so many times I have to take some pre-preemptive measures or I look like the one that is in the wrong and risk geting in trouble or banned. I think that was your goal from the beginning. I don't trust you at all and you have never been arguing in good faith; and I think you know it too.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 5 years ago

People that liked the full sequel trilogy should have their heads examined. Even if you liked one film; the disjointed recon from film to film would mean you could not possible enjoy all 3. If you did you probably have something wrong with your head.

So in other words someone can not enjoy them and be a perfectly intelligent stable individual? Glad to know you accept other views on film.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

No you are missing my point. If you liked TFA that is on you; if you liked TLJ that is one you too; but then when TROS and straight up recons half of the themes and plots of TLJ then there is no way you can like both. The films have a painfully jarring disconnect from one another that at a meta level was very obvious caused by 2 directors with VERY different visions.

If you like all 3, then yes something is probably wrong with you; you are either totally mindless and don't pay attention to story continuity in the slightest; or you are entertained by anything that has the name star wars (which means you are a consumer only) and refuse to look at it critically.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 5 years ago

No I think I understood you just fine. You are saying that if you enjoy all three then there is something wrong with that person. Projecting is a rather ignorant move. What if someone said it is impossible to like the entire OT Star Wars because Return of the Jedi cheapens some of the lore? No you can enjoy all three and be a perfectly functional sane member of society. To suggest someone has a mental condition simply because they see things differently than you is rather ignorant.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Return of the Jedi does not completely and utterly (and jarringly) retcon the films before it, then is not followed up by a film that then retcons it all again. I was being somewhat humorous about the point of something being wrong with a person that likes all 3; but the level in which you seem to take personal offense to it suggest I might not be far off. Calm down bro; otherwise your reaction might get mistaken for a mental condition.

The fact is, the 3 sequel films had a frightful level of discontinuity between them; it is painfully obvious. If you can simply ignore this and enjoy each individual film without considering the 3 arc narrative; then yes; something is wrong with you, because they were not individual films; they were a 3 act film trilogy that had the middle act completely undo all the plots of act 1 and then act 3 basically tries to retcon that. it is a mess; to ignore it means you have to completely turn your brain off to the meta narrative that is obvious. that is not to say that such a person is 'stupid' but they are turning their brains off when watching these films; and I think that is a sign something is not right in their head; "don't think, just consume product". If you don't think there is something wrong with this, the fact that we are not individual thinkers but only consumers, then I suggest re-examine how you approach the products you consume.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 5 years ago

Not really relevant to my point. I was showcasing that a stable person can like Return of the Jedi even though you could argue it weakens the lore. I never said it undid what came before. I am perfectly calm. I think what happened is you realized what you said was ignorant and are now attempting to play it off as a joke. I could be wrong but that is what my gut instinct tells me.

People watch films for different reasons one. Number two people might have a different take on how they view the film than you do. There is continuity issues with the prequels as well, there are people that like the prequels and nothing is wrong with them simply because they like the prequels. That is the beautiful thing about having an opinion we can like and dislike a film for any reason we want while at the same time having nothing mentally wrong. I do not care what film you like or dislike but to say well if someone thinks this movie is good or bad there is something wrong with them. Yeah stepping over the line.

There are only 2 Star Wars films I can acknowledge that are good in my book. The rest are not my thing. However you won't catch me saying that something is wrong with a person because they like films I do not or fundamentally disagree.

We all do think and have our individuality but not everyone comes to the same conclusion now do they?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

You are totally missing my point. Sure my initial comment was hyperbole, I admit that freely; but the point is the ST is a disjointed mess. To enjoy it you have to ignore the fact the producer doesn't care about the product they put out. If you are consumer that keeps buying a bad product, then you are part of the problem, that is the only point I was making.

still missed the point. People are going to like different things, sure; but not when the same story is this disjointed from act to act. If you do than you are just not paying attention, and easily pleased by flashing things on the screen; which is a sign of low quality thinking and lower quality consuming. This is a problem because if enough people continue to spend money on a product no matter how disjointed it is; they will continue lowering the quality. This would be the equavilent of you buying a pizza from a pizza manufacturer and next time you buy you get a calzone; when you are expecting a pizza. Do you just tolerate it with a smile on your face and say 'well I like calzone too"? If you did, I would say there is something wrong with you. You are allowed to protest when you buy a product and it is not what you expect or ordered. If you just tolerate, there is something wrong with you.

there are 2 great star wars films and 2 'okay' ones. The rest have been pretty bad. I don't mind when people like them. I can't stand it when they get defended as good but can provide no good reasoning for why, nor counter argue the criticisms which are immense. Stop getting hung up on the hyperbolic statement, the point is those that liked TFA should not have also liked TLJ because it was 'not the product' they were 'promised'. Then those that liked TLJ should not like TROS for the same reason, TLJ set expectations and TROS undermined them. That is a bad product.

I cannot believe how dense you are being about this, are you trolling or something? it has to be purposeful just to get a rise out of me.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 5 years ago

Or you could just enjoy the film? Ever heard of the term Occam's razor? Sometimes the simplest explanation is often the correct one. Yeah you are right in the fact that whoever pays money to see these films is contributing to them being made. Producer's make what is profitable after all. No you can enjoy the film and think the producer cares about the film. If you proceed to complain about how awful the films are but continue to pay to see them you honestly have no right to complain and should just be quiet. Which to be clear I am not referring to you I am talking about those who shell out the bucks to see it.

Bad example comparing food service to films. When you order a pizza you can look at the menu and look exactly to see what toppings, sauce, crust, and sides you want. This is exact. Even if the food is terrible what you order is precise. Movies are not like that. You don't have a menu that says okay I want this in my film and fill in the blanks for whatever else. You go in hoping for a good film that you enjoy nothing more. If you go in with menu expectations like ordering food you are going to be disappointed. No one went into Empire Strikes Back and went okay I want Vader to be Luke's father, Luke to be defeated, I want Han to be captured and I want it to end on a huge cliff hanger. You do have the right to voice your displeasure but as I said bad example using food.

So it boils down to they need to get through you in order to have a valid opinion? Interesting logic. Chinatown was not what I expected guess what I loved the film. I do not get all hung up on being a child about not getting what I want. I care if the film is well executed, if it is not I will voice my displeasure of the film. Some people like that the Last Jedi subverted expectations you ever consider that? Also we have not even debated the films yet, I just came against your claim I found to be silly. Do not cast your frustrations with other users onto me. When someone is married to an idea or way of thinking how are you supposed to change their mind if you disagree? It is a waste of time. You sound rather dead set that the ST is bad and will not hear anything to the contrary. So I then ask does a film critic or fan have to throw in the towel and say okay you know what my opinion is not valid because I can not convince arflexit?

Sounds to me like you are the one getting worked up. I am honestly here for a friendly debate.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

You are not getting it, this is not about a person having a personal preference for the type of story in film they enjoy; it about when a person has no preference at all and just consumes whatever has the label they once liked. That is not the same thing. I have heard of Occam's razor; it is a common misconceptions pseudo intellectuals think is a compelling argument; and you quoted it wrong. Occam's razor is NOT "the simplest explanation is the CORRECT one" Occam's razor states "the simplest explanation is the BEST one". those are not the same thing. And Occam's razor is a fallacy because the best answer is not always the right answer. Also in this topic the simplest explanation is people are dumb and mindlessly consume product. Which is not a good thing. BTW I have not paid to see a single disney STar WArs film. And I will not moving forward, until I see a product constantly good.

The point of the food analogy is a calzone is basically a pizza that has been folded on itself, so it is related to what was expected. The point I am trying to make is, the ST was not a set of individual films; it was supposed to be one consistent story and it was so disjointed from director to director of the individual films their was simply no discernible overarching narrative. This would be like Shakespeare writing 1 act for 3 different plays and then just shoving them together.

"So it boils down to they need to get through you in order to have a valid opinion?"

This is why I am getting worked up, your comments like this (since your first post) are just riddled with passive aggressive condescension. People don't need to go through me to have an opinion; but this is how the art of arguments works; if you have an opinion (which is not a question of validity, a person is entitled to their opinion) and you are going to defend your opinion you have to provide sound reasoning, or the opinion is a badly reasoned opinion.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 5 years ago

You misquoted me on Occam's razor. My exact quote was this.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is often the correct one.

This is the dictionary definition.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/occams-razor/

Occam's razor is a philosophical principle that states the simplest explanation is usually the best one.

I said it is often the correct one, true I should have said the best, but I did not say it is the correct one I said it is often the correct one. So since you said best and correct are different than so is claiming I said it is THE correct vs often times it is.

I got what you were trying to convey but it is silly to compare it to ordering food as I illustrated. Movies are not exact like that, we judge them by if they are good or bad. I judge a movie for what it is not what I want it to be. If you go into a movie with a food menu like expectation you are going to be disappointed. I am not saying you can't be displeased with the quality of the film but having those type of expectations is going to lead you nowhere.

Answer my question then. So if someone who is a fan or critic can't convince you then they should take their review down and go well I would post this review but I can not convince arflexit? I am pretty sure it does not work that way.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

See you say you understand what I am trying to convey but then argue like you don't.

For example, I didn't mean to misquote you by missing the word "often" but that was not even the point. The point is "BEST" is not equatable to "CORRECT". even saying an answer is "often the best" or "often the correct" are not the same. The importance of Occam's Razor is you are going for the "best" answer you have available and not necessarily the correct one. You are applying the principle of Occam's Razor incorrectly. But you put your focus totally on the wrong content and decided to get all hung up on the word "often" and that was not even the point I was making; if you noticed I also did not include the word "often" in my own definition.

The point of the food analogy is about the consumer/audience reaction, not about the product itself. TFA set up a certain story by being a 1st act. TLJ as the 2nd act undermines this, and then TROS then does a desperate retcon. To say you enjoy it anyway means that you don't actually care about the consistency of the product. The 'food' is not the point of the analogy, the person's reaction to the product is the point. So no, you didn't get the point I was conveying because you focused on the totally wrong part of the analogy.

Your question is irrelevant; I am not talking about reviewing and reacting to the individual films; I am talking about reacting to them as one complete story that undermines itself from act to act. you miss my point both about people that liked all 3 films have something wrong with them and also my point about being able to defend liking the films with sound reasoning. It is not about convincing me to accept or validate your opinion, it is about demonstrating you have sound reasoning for your opinion. even if I don't agree with the opinion, the reason should be sound. If you can't give good reasoning (or have bad reasons) than your opinion is a bad opinion. This is how an opinion in an argument is judged.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 5 years ago

I acknowledged my error by saying I should have said best.

See but this is where I disagree. Since you obviously hated TFA it would not have mattered where they took the story you would still have considered it a bad film. A bit unfair. Your mind was made up before you even laid eyes on the film. No my point stands when you order food it is exact films are not like that. You said if someone gave you different from what you ordered would it be acceptable? No because you picked from a specific menu. The audience's reaction to the product showcases what people liked or disliked.

So then someone can think TFA is a good film on it's own without having a mental condition or your stamp of approval then correct? So enjoying the trilogy as a whole is the unforgivable cardinal sin in your eyes then? Who determines what is a sound opinion? You the mass public? Look I get basic logic but different things bother different people for many reasons. So then if I point out flaws someone can not come against in a classic film that gives me the right to call it a bad film if they can not defend it?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yeah but then you put all of you focus on my error of not including the word "often". was this purposeful to deflect away from you improper use of Occam's Razor? It appears to be just that.

This is not about my rating of the films; and it is also not about how my rating of the films compares to others. You ARE STILL missing the point. For the immediate purposes let us say I don't care if someone likes TFA, and then I don't care if other people liked TLJ. The point is that the individual parts (acts) that make up the trilogy did not follow a singular story, so each part is utterly divorced from the one that came before. If you liked TFA then there is no way you should have liked TLJ, because it undermines the story set up in TFA (even if I don't think there was much of a story to undermine, that is not the point here). Then if you are someone that liked TLJ then there is no way you should have liked TROS because it is purposefully retconning the things you liked about TLJ. If you liked all 3 films despite this, there is something wrong with how you are watching movies; because the 3 films are NOT INDEPENDENT so you cannot judge them independently. So to enjoy all 3 means that you shut your brain off and utterly ignored the story, so that you can just enjoy the flashy explosions on the screen. If that is you, then yes there is something wrong with you; one should not be able to turn their brain off to THAT degree, it is a sign of low thinking consuming.

Missed my point yet again, this is not about my approval, in fact none of what I say is about someone getting my approval; I don't give a shit if someone 'needs' my approval for their opinion. But if they want me to respect their opinion even if don't agree with it, they have the responsibility to provide sound reasoning for their opinion otherwise it is a shit opinion.

to be continued...

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Nope if that were true I would not have openly acknowledged that I should have said best instead of correct.

So since it is a trilogy then we need to judge it as a whole rather than individually. If that is the case the only truly great big budget trilogy would be Lord of the Rings. No other big budget film trilogy has all entries that are so closely rated critically as well as by users. A New Hope and Empire stand head and shoulders above Return of the Jedi. The first two Godfathers stand head and shoulders above the third. LOTR they are all very close in terms of reception. Sure you can judge them independently. You are basically saying that because they all connect you have to judge them as a whole and can't like an individual film. Terminator 1 and 2 are great anything after I will pass on. Yep it is a sequel but I do not have to consider it canon. Same goes for Godfather 1 and 2. I do not have to consider 3 part of the franchise. Who says that is a bad thing enjoying all three even if what you said is true? Nothing is wrong with a person who enjoys a movie for any reason it is an opinion.

No I got the point just fine. No one needs your respect to have an opinion on these films. If someone puts out a review that many people find sound and you don't that is your right to disagree with it and think it is terrible. Why should they care about your respect? What do they gain by having your respect?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I think you are being disingenuous; I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith. For example you never actually admitted that you should have used "Best" instead of "Correct", I had to pull that out of you. You initial response was to put all focus on me not including "often" in my response which proved my point about you not actually understanding the points I am making; now you are trying to save face. At least this is how it is appearing.

Yes and no; some trilogies were not designed to be trilogies and work as stand alone movies; such as Godfather. I know you know that films that were made to be a trilogy such as the PT and ST; or LOTR, the individual films cannot be judged fully stand alone. This is yet another example of why I think you are just being condescending and not arguing in good faith. AND you are still missing my point; the Star Wars sequel trilogy the story actual gets undermined then retconned from film to film. If you just mindless like all 3, then you are bad consumer who is just not paying attention to quality story. Which is an indication something is wrong with you.

Okay, then they should not bother arguing. If they can't provide an argument that can demonstrate they have an opinion worth respecting; then they are just full of bad opinions. And you missed my point again. This is about people being able to articulate their reasons clearly and give good reasons. For example; they could say 'I liked this film because it was fun despite its many flaws'; this is a 'respectable' opinion. I don't think the reason is great but it admits that they enjoy something but also acknowledge it is flawed. If they didn't want me to respect their opinion why did they (or you) even bother commenting and discussing with me? Seems a bit silly to waste ones time with just useless back and forth sniping. yet another comment that makes me suspect you are not arguing in good faith. I think we are about done here.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

My exact quote.

I said it is often the correct one, true I should have said the best, but I did not say it is the correct one I said it is often the correct one. So since you said best and correct are different than so is claiming I said it is THE correct vs often times it is.

So no I openly said in my first response that I should have said best. So I honestly think you are the one who is being disingenuous. It does not change the fact that you misquoted me also. I owned up to my mistake now own up to yours.

If you just mindless like all 3, then you are bad consumer who is just not paying attention to quality story. Which is an indication something is wrong with you.

Not true whatsoever. You can like mindless fun without having anything wrong with you. Yet another condescending jab you are trying to project to make yourself appear superior.

They can argue if they want. You act as if if they need your respect to argue. This shows you did not listen to what I said. So then if someone says I liked this movie because despite it's flaws it had great visuals, and the music was solid. That is all they need to say in order for their opinion to be understood. I do not care if you respect anyone's view what I think is silly is you want to literally say something is mentally wrong with someone for something they enjoy. It literally is insulting and rather rude. Just for these comments alone it makes me not respect your view at all.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"So since you said best and correct are different than so is claiming I said it is THE correct vs often times it is."

This part of the quote is where you shifted it back to a discussion about the misquote on my part and not the actual important difference between using the word "best" vs "correct". getting this word incorrect actually changes the entire meaning of the principle. the inclusion of the word "often" does not change the meaning of the principle, only the precision of its application. So you are now missing my point about how you want to shift the discussion away from your error of calling on Occam's razor totally incorrectly so you can focus on my mistake of misquoting you by not including the word "often". So no I am not being disingenuous, you are; or maybe you are just realizing what you are doing, you are creating defenses to try to deflect away from how wrong you were. I already owned up to my mistake, I called it a misquote. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT? My misquote didn't change the meaning of the principle. You definition getting it wrong was a fundamental error, not a misquote. Pretty big difference in the level of error.

You can like mindless fun; but you can't then try to justify it as good quality. It can't be both mindless and good quality.

I am running out of space but we can discuss the specifics of TFA at another chain. I agree that TFA has inarguable high production value and can discuss the objective good aspects fo the films.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I acknowledged I should have said best. Thing is you want me to literally gravel and go I was so wrong. I made an error I acknowledged that. Since you keep bringing that up I will gladly keep bringing up how you misquoted me. Your misquote did change the meaning actually. If someone said Occam's razor means the simplest explanation is the best one they would be wrong. That makes it that you are making it an absolute stance. Saying it is THE best when the correct term would be it is often the best. I admit I should have said best openly but you are wrong by saying that not including often does not change the core meaning.

Is Mad Max Fury Road mindless fun?

True okay I would be happy to.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Here is the difference between us; mine was a typo that can be easily forgiven and I was not the one that brought it up. You brought it up and were wrong on the initial definition to which I corrected and and forgot to type in the word "often" when I quoted you. That is a typing error; not one of ignorance, and an arrogant ignorance too since you are the one that was trying to call on Occam's Razor as some kind of support for your position. I am not looking for grovelling; but you keep responding with extremely defensive excuses and deflections from your error; it seems deep down you don't want to accept you got called out on your ignorance and failure to 'look smart'.

I would have to think about Fury Road; I liked it first viewing but then it was on TV so much that I kind of got sick of it. I wouldn't say it is mindless fun; as it is not a fun feel good type of movie; but I am not invested in that answer and have not thought about it as much as Star Wars so I could be persuaded by a good argument.

Okay; I will reply to you initial quote to me and we can start from there.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

When I acknowledge I should have said best openly what more needs to be done? I am honestly asking?

Couldn't someone call that film mindless fun? What is the story depth? Is that a unique story when objectively measuring it as a screenplay?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

nothing more needed to be done, if you would have let it go and stopped trying to defend or excuse your mistake in bringing the principle of Occcam's Razor up in the first place I wouldn't have kept replying and pointing out your defensiveness and excuse making.

someone could call it that; do they have enough evidence to support it though? I am thinking about the film now and in universe you have a new unique story with Mad Max character in a formulaic situation (much like with the town in Road Warrior) but with a new take and new characters that each have their own fleshed out motivations and characters. So does the villains. They are not exact repeats of the villains from Road Warrior; and the goals and ambitions are not the same either. So I don't think there is enough evidence to support calling it mindless fun. But I would be interested in hearing an argument if someone could make it.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

If I was making an excuse I would have just honed in on your misquote while not acknowledging my error. I did not do that. Lets move past this point okay my bad.

Here is my issue though is something bad by default because it is a rehash? If so that means Terminator 2 is by default a bad film. Furiosa, Nux and Immortan Joe are the standout characters. However what makes their arcs unique? Nux goes through the positive character arc change the most common character arc used in literature. Immortan Joe is simply a negative flat villain that oppresses. Furiosa is the rebel who goes against the oppressor. Is any of that unique?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

But you kept deflecting and making excuses; as you do here again. and then you keep bringing it up; I am not sure what more you are looking for. You used the term wrong; let it go.

No, something does not have to be unique to be good. It is about execution. Villains don't have arcs usually; they are like the inverse of a paragon character. Nux and Furiosa both have character arcs; and so does Max; none of them are groundbreakingly unique but they are executed mostly well.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Okay so then something being a rehash does not by default make it bad either then correct?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

not by default. Of course the more derivative it is of the previous film the more difficulty it will have making it own 'mark'. Also TFA is supposed to be a sequel not a rehash or a reboot. Mad Max Fury Road is not at all related to the other films. It is not a sequel to the Road Warrior. it is a stand alone adventure sort of similar to a James Bond film.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I agree if you rehash it will have much higher difficulty of making it's own mark. Here is an interesting question though. Terminator 2 is absolutely a sequel but undeniably a rehash of the first. Thing is Terminator 2 revolutionized special effects where as the first one did not. Which is the better film? If you go by cultural impact and memorability the second one would take the mantle.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I think most people if they are being reasonable and not letting subjectivity over ride their objectivity would admit that in terms of story, character development, and general effect would admit that T1 is the better film. I think that it is objectively better for those reasons. That is not to say that T2 isn't good. In fact for a sequel to rehash the plot and turn the style from a slasher sci-fi film to a super action, it arguably the best sequel ever made. But it is a rehash of the plot and muddles with the story continuity by suggesting the time loop is broken.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

See but that is just the deal. Terminator 2 does rehash the plot but it also adds more depth than the first one offered. There is no fate but what we make, how it is in our nature to destroy ourselves and Sarah having to put aside her distrusting of the T800 were all great themes added into the second film. The first one does have depth but is more straightforward than the second one is.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I disagree that T2 has more depth, it is just less subtle. The idea of "no fate" was presented in T1 and is not explored anymore in T2 they just make it an actual objective to try to change. Kyle tells Sarah in John's message 'the future is not set'. The idea of nature to destroy ourselves was literally one throw away line in T2, on the nose and no nuance and is left unexplored. and the idea is present in T1, the fact that defense systems turned against its creators is the same idea, we created that which destoryed us. Sarah's 'trusting' the terminator is no more deep than her transformation from being an everyday no one that has to embrace the role she must for the survival of the human species that she does embrace by the film's end.

So no, I do not agree that T2 has more depth, it is just less subtle. Not that it is a bad movie; I love T2 but these are some of the reasons why T1 is an objectively better film.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Disagree about it being a throwaway line. Sarah's closing speech says if a Terminator can learn the value of a human life maybe we can too. Showcasing that humanity can survive if we learn the value of life.

The fact they made it an objective really explores this concept and fleshes it out. The other aspect is a machine can learn emotion but it can not have emotion. Another theme not present in the first.

So answer this why do the mass majority of critics and the mass majority of people all have Terminator 2 above one?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Okay, so it was 2 throw away lines. the terminator does not learn the value of life as a feeling. The point of his line "i know now why you cry, but it is something I can never do" is meant to signify he has learned the objective and importance of life but can't actually feel it or know it. he was still a machine.

It does not really flesh it out though. they don't ponder on the possible effects if they succeed are; there is no thought given if John or the terminators stop existing or what happens to the timeline if it is changed. They don't explore it, they just have an objective and try to accomplish it.

I think they are saying at a subjective level they say T2 is better than one. Most reasonable people which film was objectively better would agree that T1 was better but they prefer T2. Same as will Alien and Aliens.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I know exactly what I said he learned what emotion is but he can not have it. He knows why life is valuable but again a machine can never feel.

This drives the entire objective though.

See I disagree here. I think you have a strong case either way with Alien vs Aliens or Terminator vs Terminator 2. This isn't like okay what is better The Dark Knight or Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice. That is such a joke of a comparison it is not worth mentioning. Terminator vs 2 or Alien vs Aliens you have a strong case for preferring either.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That is a good point. in some ways you can make an argument that each film was objectively better at what it set out to accomplish. You can make an argument either way. For example T2 is an objectively better Action film than T1; but T1 was an objectively better thriller. So when both films are good you can make an argument either way. As we discussed before; I give the edge to films with the better story and characters. T1 has better character development for Kyle and Sarah (T2 only the terminator even has an arc, sarah and john end rather the same as they begin). and T1 has the more original plot.

Aliens in more tricky though because even the side characters have really great character arcs and it has a bit of an new unique story. It does not rehash the plot of the first and it expands it. I usually give the edge to the original but Aliens is pretty close.

But I also agree with the point that in some films the comparison is a joke. For example to compare ESB to TLJ is a joke ESB is lightyears better than TLJ; and any reasonable person would say ESB is objectively good and in comparison TLJ is objectively bad.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I agree 100% Even though I think I prefer 2 I can't fight that. Solid points my man.

You might be able to even make the case Aliens is a better sequel than Terminator 2. I say this and I adore both these films. Aliens does not rehash the plot of the first Alien. It also introduces some cool new ideas to the franchise. Now the thing I give the first Alien is I felt everyone was fair game to die in that film. Where as in Aliens it was obvious Ripley and Newt were going to make it out alive. Alien had the brilliance of not making it obvious who the main star was until the end. The Alien is more mysterious and scary in the first also. I do like Sigourney Weaver's performance a tad more in the second though. I also like how it is a bit more fast paced and fun honestly. Yeah it is a tough call I love both honestly.

Oh no yes Empire is hands down better than the Last Jedi. It is like I said if you compared BVS Dawn of Justice and the Dark Knight it is like really come on man.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

that is a good point about Alien; you didn't know what to expect. Like you had no idea Ash was a robot so the reveal was shocking. Aliens had no such twists like that. Tough to call in either case. Aliens I think has better character development for nearly all the characters.

I think the thing we have to remember is that judging something based in objectivity is based on what we are comparing it to. when it is a franchise you have to compare it to the other films in the franchise.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Who determines what is a sound opinion?"

Now who is misquoting who; I am not judging if an opinion is sound or not; I am judging if the opinion is sound or not. But you have the job of articulating the reasons for your opinion so that I can understand how you came to that opinion even if I don't agree with it. If you can't make me understand how you came to your opinion than you have bad reasoning skills (or you are just unable to clearly explain it). Either way if you have bad reasons or you can't explain you reasons, then your opinion is worthless.

"So then if I point out flaws someone can not come against in a classic film that gives me the right to call it a bad film if they can not defend it?"

If you point out flaws you can have a discussion about the specifics. Even the best of films have flaws that can be discussed. Isn't that what the point of film discussions is; or we only supposed to talk about 'how great' things are and not look critically at anything?

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

That is just it one could argue they could make an easy reason to understand why they liked TFA. It could be the most shallow reason on the block. You could sneer at it but in the end they gave you their reason as to why they thought the film was good.

Absolutely it is. Thing is if I can point out several flaws in a classic film you can not come against then that means I have valid points correct? I am all about pointing to flaws which have a strong overall effect on the plot.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

If that admit their opinion is based in shallow reasoning, it is a tolerable opinion. As I said in my other comment someone could say "I liked TFA despite its flaws, it was dumb fun and I enjoyed it" I respect this opinion. It admits the weakness of the reasoning for liking it, acknowledges the criticisms are valid, and admits that objectively it is bad but their like of it is 100% based in subjectivity. I find nothing 'offensive' about such an opinion.

"Thing is if I can point out several flaws in a classic film you can not come against then that means I have valid points correct?"

This question actually doesn't make sense. I have read it multiple times and I have no idea what you are asking. Are you asking that if you point out valid criticisms even in classic films and that I cannot argue against them being flaws then your analysis is correct? If so, yes the point about the flaw would be correct, I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the question.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Yet again you can objectively break down from a visual perspective or sound perspective why TFA is good. Movies are made up of tons of things. Technically TFA is a well shot film, with good sound. Not every criticism is valid of TFA. Are there some good criticisms sure but again you can say the film is good and not agree with all the criticisms that claim it is a bad film.

So then if the point about the flaw would be correct and if they have several you can not come against, then that means they have the right to call the film bad because of those flaws correct?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

you are moving the goal posts. I am willing to discuss each individual criticsim of the individual film; and whether or not they are valid. I can also acknowledge some the production quality of each film. The initial point I was making was 100% about story and the meta narrative. And that is why it 'should' be impossible to enjoy all 3; because the story not only does not stay consistent from film to film; it actively and knowingly undermines or retconns what came before. So to enjoy all 3 would require a complete and utter ignoring of the story and characters, and thematic narratives. You can subjectively like a bad film; but you cannot call an objectively bad movie good; even if the production quality is very high; the film needs all criteria to be at least decent for it to be objectively good.

it depends on how severe the flaws are or if there is enough other criteria to make it so the flaw is not 'game breaking' sort a speak. Also certain criteria hold higher value than others. For example story and characters are more important than quality of CGI; because story and characters are timeless and not limited by the technology of the time and budget (unlike CGI and special effects). of course how important each element is important is up for debate (such as is story more important than characters or are they too tied in to be distinguishable?) .

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

No I am not. A film can excel at one thing and be sub par in many areas and still be considered a decent film. Avatar is a cliche derivative story that completely relies on the technical stuff. Avatar did revolutionize certain things technically for special effects. Revolutionizing things or pioneering things for effects or visuals can help you out a ton. It can be the very thing that makes your movie considered good.

I agree that story, and characters hold up better than technical scale things do. However film is a visual medium therefore visuals matter more in the film world than vs lets say writing a book.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Avatar is an objectively bad movie though. It might have some technically related topics that were amazing and revolutionary; but that doesn't make it a good film.

Visuals and use of camera are not the same as special effects and cgi limits. A clever filmmaker can hide their limits on the technical side with the right camera work.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

So does that mean Mad Max Fury Road is also an objectively bad film?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I don't like Mad Max Fury Road to be honest; but I think objectively it is a good film; maybe not as good as the original sequel "The Road Warrior" but I think it is an example of a reboot done right.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. What would stop someone from saying it is an objectively bad film because it has no story or depth?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Because they would be wrong, and not being objective. The film does have story, keeps relatively good continuity while at the same time rebooting with a new cast. A film does not have to have 'depth' to be good. It needs to maintain continuity within itself, its characters, the setting and the established history if one exists. And since it is an Action franchise it needs to have good action sequences that work within the established 'rules' of the fictional universe. Fury Road does this; TFA does not.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Okay so then if a movie is deeper than another does that by default make it better? Say for instance you have a film such as Chinatown vs a film like Mad Max Fury Road.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I said:

"A film does not have to have 'depth' to be good."

I am making an argument this concept of 'depth" has no true affect on quality of the film. Depth I almost would attribute as being equatable with pretentiousness, at least in a lot of cases.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

A movie being pretentious is not necessarily in my opinion a valid argument as to why a film is bad. Neither is a film being woke a valid point either. What matters is the execution of the film. People often misuse the word woke or think by seeing if something is pretentious automatically means ok bad. Some of the greatest films of all time are woke or pretentious.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

If that is the case I think you are not applying the word Pretentious and woke the same way a critic would. both of these when used to criticized a film means the critic is making an argument that the use of 'woke' messaging or unnecessarily depth (often too on the nose, or art for the sake of art and actually shallow) had a negative impact on the story (or in some cases completely overrides the story for the sake of messaging).

I agree that something being 'artsy' doesn't make it bad by default and that it depends on the execution. But pretentiousness and woke messaging are negative descriptors of use of art or often unsubtle messaging. To get a fix on how we define what is woke or pretentious; please provide some examples of great films that you feel were called 'woke or pretentious'.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

First lets go over the definition of woke. People most of the time do not even understand the meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

A film such as 12 Years a Slave can be called woke. So can a film like Schindler's List or even a film such as Selma or Moonlight. Are these films bad because they are woke? Nope. Can a film that is woke be bad yes but like anything it is determined by execution.

There Will Be Blood often gets called pretentious. Does this have any bearing on the acting, cinematography, music, editing, etc?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Ever hear of the concept of defining words in your own words? The idea here is if you go off the 'official' definition you are not lining it up with how the word is being used.

The way it is being used commonly signifies an idea that the attentiveness to issues (racial or social justice) is overriding the actual narrative and hindering the ability to effectively tell the story. Or in some cases there is no story and the woke messaging is like a sermon preaching wokeness at the audience.

I do not know of anyone that uses the word commonly would call either 12 years or Schindler's List woke films. But films like Moonlight certainly do (have not seen it myself but the subject matter seems pretty damn on the nose). But I mostly agree that a film being bad or good depends on the execution. I think when people use the word 'woke' they are saying that the poor execution was either caused by the messaging overriding plot or the execution was so bad that the messaging lacked any nuance and 'grace'.

Hmm; I don't think There will Be Blood would be called pretentious; usually pretentious means 'artsy for artiness sake'. I am trying to think of an example of a film that I do think is pretentious. Maybe Birdman comes to my mind.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

The official definition is the correct way to define something.

Then the film is badly executed. It wouldn't matter if the film was trying to preach a political agenda, a religious agenda or anything if it is badly executed it makes no difference what message it is trying to convey.

Thing is people will dismiss something completely if it is woke. Which would mean you dismiss a film like Moonlight just off the basis of knowing what the subject matter is. How am I suppose to respect an opinion when someone walks in with a slanted view already ready to dislike the film? Judge a film for what it is not what you like or do not like.

Birdman is well shot acted, and written. You can call it pretentious all you want that does not take away where it will stand in film history.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Words often mean more than there definition; especailly complex words with multiple definition. You think a word like "moral" can be summed up in a single descriptive sentence? that is extremely limited thinking.

The point is when something is criticized for being woke the critic is saying the film was poorly executed because the creators cared more about the message than making a good film.

I would not watch a film with such a story or message, i have no interest in it. I could not rate or judge its objective quality until I saw it. The point I was making is others call it woke because it was poorly executed movie because it cared more about the message than the story. At least from what I have heard, i could not judge it till I saw it. You seem pretty eager to dismiss me and my 'opinion' when I am not even stating my opinions here.

Where does it stand in film history? 6 years later and it is almost completely forgotten about. It is not going to survive the test of time like other great films have. There will be blood will survive, birdman will not.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

The definition of the word woke is rather straightforward wouldn't you say?

So then as long as it is executed correctly it does not matter if it is woke?

Until someone sees a film with their own eyes their opinion means nothing on that film. I watch films for myself I do not always listen to what others say about it. I would have missed out on a lot of great movies if I did that.

Who forgot about Birdman? By what standards are you saying it has been forgotten? By critics by the majority of people who?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

No, it is an extremely limited definition and does not cover a whole aspect of how the word gets used. It is basically the forgiving definition of the concept.

What I am saying that if it is executed well it won't get called woke. For example no one would say District 9 is a 'woke' film despite its rather obvious political messaging. But in that case the messaging did not take the place of story. Unlike films like TLJ were the messaging took the place of plot and story.

I agree; that is why I didn't give my opinion of the film Moonlight. I was just talking about how others were defining the word using this as an example. Maybe they are wrong and it is not as 'woke' as they claim and they are too hypersensitive about any indication of SJW messaging that anything that even seems like it gets a harsher response than say 10 years ago. I doubt that is the case though because in Moonlight the messaging is the stories plot description.

Umm, critics and majority of audience have forgotten about it. Films like No country for old men, godfather, There will be blood, most Nolan films still get discussed all the time and critics and professional come out with new articles and discussions of these films all the time. I have not seen that for the movie birdman.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

The forgiving definition is the dictionary definition?

I have seen many people refer to District 9 as a bad film for these exact reasons.

I do think people are hyper sensitive about it. The minute they learn it has a political message they will dismiss it based off that alone. You know how many people have called Mad Max a feminist trash film just because it is feminist?

Based on what? You talking about on here?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Of course the dictionary defintion is forgiving; most of the time dictionary definition try to be as objective and none challenging as possible. It does not always refect properly how a word is used; especially if the word is used commonly informal or as slang. In this case the way it is used commonly is a slang to refer to art that focuses more on the messaging than delivery an effective piece of entertainment, specifically for film or other media. Are you being intentionally dense about this. You have to know this is how people are using the word.

Almost no one that I have heard in Youtube, discussions boards, IMDB, reddit or nearly any other place I have seen have called District 9 a woke film. you will have to provide some examples.

Mad Max was not a feminist film. I don't know why you would even think it was unless YOU were the one going out of your way to look for messaging. Just because a film has a strong female protagonist does not make it feminist.

Not just here, youtube discussions, general google searches, previously IMDB, reddit. All is silent on the Birdman front; you can find more recent discussions and analyzing pieces about Aliens and Godfather than Birdman; for all intensive purposes, it is a forgotten film.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

The other thread got too long so I am replying up here. Exactly it is the most objective which is why I think it is the best way to utilize the definition. That is what I am trying to point out it is thrown at something if it is badly made. So a film can have those exact same things but if it is good then woke is not mentioned. In my mind either it is woke or it is not. Same goes for calling something cliche. It does not matter if it is well done or not if it is cliche it is cliche.

I did not hear it all the time but that was a reason certain people would dismiss the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN9P9MmfcLs

We are not things! Our babies will not be warlords! Women being used to breed and escaping oppression and captivity. You are right just because it has a strong female character does not make it feminist. However I believe those things are feminist.

So if a film is not discussed currently that determines where it will fall in film history? Blade Runner was a massive box office bomb when it came out only years down the line did people realize how good it was. King of Comedy was a flop but when referenced now is considered a film ahead of it's time. Avengers Infinity War or Avengers Endgame gets discussed more than a film like Nightcrawler would however when determining it critically Nightcrawler will make a best of movie list before a film like Avengers would same goes Birdman. Poor example on your part.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes but sometimes a non-offensive definition of a word is NOT the best definition. sometimes a words meaning is 'bad'. The way woke is used (as slang) is to describe when the film did not bother with perfecting its execution and instead focused on political messaging of some kind. By that definition the 'wokeness' is description of what made the film bad and fail its execution. If you are using a word one way; and everyone else is using it another you have to accept their use of it or you will run into an impasse and not be able to discuss further. All you will do is talk past each other. If you do not budge on sticking too close to the 'dictionary' definition of the word then we will be at an impasse as well and there will be no point in continuing the discussion on that topic. Same as with cliche; if the execution of a film is good it will not feel cliche and will not get called out by many unless they are doing a real in depth analysis. For example Star Wars is actually rather cliche archetypal story but it is very well executed so few call it cliche.

With Fury Road; I did not see it as feminist messaging; but then we have to define what we see as feminist messaging. In Fury Road these women were embracing there maternal instincts and protecting their unborn children and try to escape and sacrifice for the children. Same as with Aliens with Ripley and Sarah Connor; these women were strung because of their embrace of their maternal instinct drove them to be kick ass women. An example of feminist messaging would be the new Terminator movie were sarah connor says the new john connor is only important because of her womb just like she 'was' and it turns out that the young girl was the new john connor. Which was a total rejection of everything that made Sarah Connor a strong and compelling female hero.

Blade Runner and King of Comedy the discussion grew over time; Birdman, the avengers films fade with each year. That is a big difference

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

To each his own but I prefer sticking to the textbook definition. Even if I play their game people will use that as a fall back to hating a film. They will dismiss it based off that alone. Even if the message is woke that does not by default make the film bad is my whole point. A film can be flawed and still be a rather solid film. Even if you feel the message overrides the film the film can still be considered good or even great. Forrest Gump is considered a cinematic classic after all.

That seems to me more like a betrayal of character than feminist agenda.

How old are Blade Runner and King of Comedy? Birdman could very well be discussed way later on just like King of Comedy is today. I am in film school and we discussed that film a few months ago.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes, but if you are using and only accepting the 'dictionary' definition and everyone else is using the word a different way; you either accept the slang definition or you are just simply not communicating effectively; and actually counter productively. My whole point is if the film is well executed no one will even notice if it is woke and it will not get called such. Basically only badly executed films that tried relying on their messaging to be successful are the only films that will get called woke. I am not sure what Forrest Gump has to do with anything.

Yes, but there is this idea of this '3rd wave' feminism which actually treats motherhood as a bad thing. The message in Dark Fate was a call to that; the old stupid Sarah Connor's idea of her only importance and the new John Connor's importance was to be a womb. It is saying that the mother is actually not important the 'doer' is the important one. Which is both stupid and a rejection of the beauty and importance of motherhood. That is a '3rd wave' feminist message and it was very much on the nose and contributed to Dark Fate being a poorly executed film.

Within 5 years of Blade Runner coming out there was already a huge cult following. So much so Director's editions started to be produced. Blade runner is about as popular today as it was almost 20 years ago. It was just not popular on first release. Birdman is fading more and more. and it has been over 5 years. Unless there is a real revival of the film it will slip into obscurity.

Oh god, you are in film school? oh man no wonder you don't recognize pretentiousness; you are being indoctrinated by it. When you are buried up to your knows in bullshit it actually becomes hard to distinguish shit. The trend I see, is those who are in film school and an incredibly inflated sense of their own opinion and are even poorer at judging subjective and objective than a casual movie goer. So far my impression of you is... Well let us say I am not surprised you are in film school.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Technically the dictionary definition is the most correct one. I do not go by that kind of thinking. If a film is cliche it is cliche no matter the execution of it. Same goes for if it is woke.

Honestly I saw the trailer for Dark Fate and said no thanks. It looks awfully shot and terribly unfunny. Terminator ended with the second one there is no more after that. It being woke or feminist agenda I could not care less about. It is a dead franchise.

Really if that were true why was Blade Runner 2049 a box office flop? I am not denying Blade Runner has a cult following but it took Kind of Comedy longer than that to develop it's following.

Oh because anyone in film school can't recognize the things you can right? I am going look past that condescending remark. I have not passively aggressively insulted you do not do it to me. Your generalization of encounters with people in film school I am also going to look past. There are ignorant and smart people who have not gone to film and there are smart people and ignorant people who have gone film school. You got proven wrong about Birdman fyi. If it was so forgotten about why was it shown in my film class and discussed a few months ago? In film school I am learning how to film a movie, about cinematography, editing, sound and how to make storyboards. I also am taking a writing class also. Since you seem to know more than any film student with your condescending tone why are you not making films? You act as if your word has more sole authority than what I am being taught in film class. You couldn't make a movie like Birdman if your life depended on it. Am I saying I can nope but you started the condescending attitude first. Learn to have more humility.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That is just not correct though; do you also use the word "gay" to describe happy? If everyone is using the slang and only you are using the definition you are just flat out wrong. because everyone one but you knows what they mean when they say woke, and you are using a different definition than about 90% of the people using the word. if a film is well executed the agenda won't be so painfully obvious that it has a negative impact on the film; and therefore it will NOT even get called woke or cliche to begin with.

I agree about T2 and Dark Fate just looking awful.

BR 2049 grossed almost 100 million in just the US Box office. It was not even close to a flop; sure it didn't pull in Force Awakens type numbers but hardly anything ever does. How do you think a sequel to Birdman would fair in teh Box office? True about King of Comedy taking longer. it took about 10 years, but it has only grown. I guess in the end time will tell with Birdman

You totally missed my point; I was not talking about the intelligence of people that go to film school; it is more about arrogance and being totally full of themselves and having delusions of authority. or in other words, are totally full of themselves. This is not a generalization; this Anecdotal evidence. nearly (if not everyone) person I have talked to on films that has gone to film school has had some degree of self abortion and inflated view of their own opinion. You don't need to have gone to film school to know these things. I know probably just as much as you on cinematography, editing, and sound (etc) and I have never taken a single class. In fact I find this likely as you had no idea about the frame rate issue of using higher frame rate on higher definition camera; or you would not have asked me what was wrong with the frame rate of TFA. Either that or you are just asking questions in bad faith; which might be likely. I am finding hints all the time of bad faith arguments.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Someone could and you can not say they are wrong. Thing is I get it fine but my brain does not work that way. If something is cliche it is cliche. No matter the execution. Just because you execute a story well does not mean it is not cliche. Same goes for if you make a woke film that is good.

Okay maybe flop was the wrong word but it did not pull in the numbers it should have. Artistic films of that level usually do not blow the doors off the box office. How much would a sequel to There Will Be Blood make?

Why should I care about your anecdotal evidence? I never said you needed to go to film school to know those things. Another comment you made was you probably knew just as much as me about cinematography, editing, and sound etc. I never claimed I knew more or just as much as you. For all I know you could know more. Thing is you are the one attempting to inflate your own view here not me. I am learning about frame rate. The frame rate did not bother me in TFA I could see how it would bother someone though. It is why I asked. Thing is since you claim to be such an expert why are you not in the film industry? I am honestly asking?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

man, you are still not getting it. IF SOMETHING CLICHE IS WELL EXECUTED IT DOES NOT GET RECOGNIZED OR CALLED CLICHE. why is this so hard for you to understand? We are not necessarily talking about how things are in actuality but how people respond or talk about them.

It is simple as no one was very interested in a sequel to Blade Runner. It was not like with Star Wars where there was a real hunger for it. In fact most people seemed to almost NOT want a sequel to Blade Runner. I only think because 2049 was actually a good film it did as well as it did; otherwise it was set up to fail but managed to pull out at least a small victory.

Because you are in danger of being added to my list of anecdotal evidence of people who have gone to film school get way to invested in their own opinion and suck at recognizing art vs pretentiousness. With each comment you prove my point more and more. i am not infalting my view; I am trying to properly distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity (of course I can't do it perfectly but I try). When I am giving my subjective opinion I am much less aggressive about it, because I understand that it is not a position based in pure objective reason. My problem with those like you is you seemingly try to do away with the objective. the frame rate was not bad across the entire film; but in many action scenes you do get a sense of the camera moving because of the high frame rate. Because I was not interested in pursuing it as a career. Film is more like a hobby of mine. But I am obsessive by nature so even 'light hearted' hobbies I end gaining an obsessive amount of knowledge on.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I get it. Thing is though people will deny if something is cliche just by if it is well executed or not. Just because it does not feel cliche or recognized as such does not mean that it is not. I get it though yes if the film is well executed then that doesn't apply for people.

Star Wars is marketable to a massive audience Blade Runner is not. Children will be bored stiff by a film like that. It is more reliant on atmosphere and subtlety.

Where am I taking away the objective logic? I said I am learning about frame rate so guess what you probably notice that more than I do because I am learning about it in film class. Maybe you should consider doing it? Maybe a youtube channel honestly? As a side gig?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I think you do now get it. I agree though, sometimes is actually cliche but is well executed, people will try to claim it is not. That goes along with what I am saying though; it is about how people are perceiving things and not about how they actually are. For example, the movie Million Dollar Baby and Grand Tarino (Eastwood is on my mind right now) both of these films by the technical definition are Woke films, they are commenting on political/cultural topics. But both films are very well executed so very few people even consider them 'woke' by the current accepted definition.

That is exactly true. So we can't be that much bothered that a film like 2049 did not pull in STar WArs type numbers. It did well enough; but also not so well that they will try to force another sequel and run the risk of ruining the story. I am quite happy with how the Blade Runner 'franchise' is turning out. Hopefully they leave it well enough alone from now on.

This whole thing started with you trying to justify it is okay for people to think TFA is a good film, when objectively it is not. It is a bad film that they liked. You have been trying to justify valuing subjective opinions over objective reasons since your very first comment to me. You know how I learned about frame rates; I watched films and shows and noticed the jarring effect in some cases. So I read about it. I didn't read about it first and then look for it in films. Actually TFA was the film that really got me to look deeper into it because it bothered me so much.

I have thought about it but I doubt I would ever follow through; I am better at writing than speaking and I don't think I have a great voice, and writing takes much less time than putting videos together. To actually make any money in that you have to develop a real large following, even if you are making great content you have to catch lightning in a bottle to get attention.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I get that but I will be honest even though I enjoyed Gran Tarino I found some of the acting to be kind of bad and forced. Not a bad film overall but in some ways the message did override the execution of the film.

Anything that catches huge numbers eventually loses it's artistic integrity and becomes a product. This has happened throughout history time and time again. The Alien franchise after the second same goes for Terminator, Halloween etc. The reason they put effort into Blade Runner 2049 was because they realized their audience is niche. Therefore the only way it will make cash is if they actually put effort into making it good. Star Wars can slap a name on something and it will make money.

See but this is where we still do not have a common ground. Who gets to make the final call of something being objectively bad? Different people have different reasons as to why they say something is good or bad.

I have heard people call Avatar a good film because of it's visuals and what it pioneered visually. Are the characters and story weak and cliche yes but you can not take that away from it. As I stated before Gran Tarino is not by any means perfect either. See a film in my book that is truly bad would be a film like Justice League. What is good about that film? Even the visuals in that film are trash. The framing is bad, the editing, is bad, the effects are awful! The writing and characters are just as bad as that. Nothing is good nothing. I can not say TFA is on that level so no I disagree that it is a bad film. I do not like it much but you will not catch me putting it alongside a film like Justice League. I agree about Blade Runner now leave it alone. Lightning somehow struck twice. The reason it has remained good though is because it has not been saturated like other franchises.

I get you well just thought I would say you have insight that counts for something. You are right though you need to catch a certain wave.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yeah some of the acting of GT was a not great; but that is not my point. The point is, technically by the official definition it is a woke film; but because of the way the word gets used especially online, no one would ever call it woke; because it is a well executed film.

True; once something has reached the point of making that much money; it goes through the corporate death phases, in which it gets milked then recycled. It becomes a product and not a film.

the problem people have is they can't or won't distinguish between liking something and acknowledging it is good. For example; I do not like the film Dances with Wolves; but I fully acknowledge it is a great film. There is not a WHO that gets to decide what is objectively good or bad, it is the standards (the culmination of the individual merits of film making) that determines the objective quality. of course our personal taste might obscure our ability to perceive the standards perfectly but that does not mean the standard is not there and we should not strive to acknowledge the difference between what is our subjective taste and what is objective quality. It will never be a perfect acknowledgement but that should be the goal.

Hmm, I don't know about Justice League. Objectively across all merits it might be a worse film by itself but it does not do harm to the overarching story and characters the same way TFA does. So you can say, that bad quality of Justice League has less collateral damage.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I get it I just find the whole thing silly.

Yep anything that gets too big gets taken from the viewer. It no longer becomes about whats best for the narrative it becomes about what can make the most money.

That is just it it is not black and white. You can look at a basketball player and compare their stats and go this person is better. The numbers are concrete there is no gray area. Yes ultimately you should do your best to be fair but in the end no one is 100% objective. I do not like Pulp Fiction. I can openly acknowledge it is a great film even though I do not personally care for it.

There is no might it is. Justice League completely undermined what they were attempting to do with the previous films as terrible as it was. Superman is now a beacon of hope when in Man of Steel and BVS he was dark and brooding? Batman now cracks jokes when he was shown to be basically the punisher in BVS? Superman's old theme song gets brought back when they made it a point to move away from the Donner Superman by using Hans Zimmer in Man of Steel and BVS?

The effects are not even fully rendered and the reshoots are painfully obvious considering Affleck goes from fit to out of shape in between scenes. Batman's fight scenes are non existent and he is made a mockery of in this. Honestly Justice League is just as bad as Batman & Robin.

I can't with a straight face tell you anything positive about Justice League. Not even if you held a gun to my face. I can acknowledge good things about Avatar and I am no fan of that cliche film. I think you are more sensitive to Star Wars lore therefore it makes you more sensitive to it being messed with. TFA at least has good visual technical aspects. Even the concept of Finn is good. Justice League does not even have a good concept or idea anywhere. It is a boot leg Avengers.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Well, that is how language develops sometimes. As silly as it might be.

Yes but usually in any sport, especially basketball; the top 10 are almost always universally judged as being the greatest and that can be said to be objective; for example you can say Michael Jordan is one of the five greatest players ever and that is an objective fact. From there you can make an objective argument that he was the best but that would be harder to prove beyond a doubt. The 'best' is harder to get a fix on then just what is just 'good' or 'bad'. There IS a right and wrong answer even if it is difficult to distinguish and in some cases impossible to judge perfectly.

See the way you feel about Justice League undermining what came before is how I view the 'set up' of TFA. It undermines the story and characters from the OT. maybe not quite as bad as Justice League (to be honest I don't know for sure because I never watched it BVS was bad enough I had no interest) but TFA is objectively bad for similar reasons that Justice Leauge was bad.

I agree about TFA having good production value; but let us compare Avatar to TFA. I hate the clicheness of Avatar but the production value is light years better than TFA; and at least Avatar is self contained and doesn't undermine previous installments and set up a bunch of unanswerable mystery boxes in place of plot and world building. I might be more sensitive to Star Wars but the sensitivity made me observe it with seriousness and not get manipulated by the 'feel good' manipulated nostalgia.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I find it very silly but unfortunately yeah.

Arguing who is the GOAT of basketball is a much harder task than who is good or bad. Thing is with a film there is no such thing as THE best film ever. There are ones that are some of the best ever. Right and wrong depends. For instance you can't make a compelling case for Batman V Superman being better than The Dark Knight. You can however make a case that Blade Runner is better than Star Wars a new hope. Both great films which you could argue either way.

Justice League can't even render it's effects, edit or frame a shot though my man. I am serious it is so embarrassingly bad. TFA does have some legit good qualities for it. Even concepts that are good like Finn. Justice League does not even have good concepts it is just across the board trash.

Oh no Avatar is superior technically. Even if you hate Avatar you can't deny it's technical achievement. Avatar is self contained but the fact that it was the highest grossing film until Endgame was a bit of a facepalm. It showcases you can take a cliche story put no effort in and throw good looking paint on it and it will sell like mad. This is why film makers do not put effort in. Why do it? Play it safe make money. Also no character in Avatar stands out to me at all! I can say Boyega as Finn does stand out to me more than any character in Avatar.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Determine the GOAT will always leave room for discussion; but the point is there is clearly good and bad; as well as great and terrible. For example; it can be said objectively that Godfather is one of the greatest films ever and objectively belongs in the top 10 consideration even if you can't fully argue that it number. For example, subjectively I would say ANH is better; objectively I would argue Blade Runner is better (at least the cut without narration). The point I am trying to make is the subjective should not 'over ride' the objective.

True, from what I have seen of JL it looks like it had straight to DVD production quality. That is bad for a big budget film. TFA does have good production value and a few good concepts; which might actually add to my frustration with it because not only is the production value and concepts wasted at the same time it undermines the beloved original story and slaps the face of the OT heroes. Very disrespectful film.

That is what said, Avatar is superior technically. Frustrating that such a cliche story with bland 1 dimensional and uncharismatic characters could hold the number 1 spot (before adjusting for inflation). I agree about Finn standing out; at least in the scenes which they aren't putting him in humiliating positions or have him acting like a buffoon; specifically he is great anytime he is not around Rey. Rey is like a black hole of sucking anything good about any scene the character is in.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Oh no I agree with this. However that is easier said than done. If something is close people are more often than not give it to their subjective preference. I do my best not to do that but it can be hard a lot of times.

See that is the thing with Justice League I literally went where did the money go? That movie had a 300 million dollar budget more if you count for advertising costs. That looked like something you a direct to dvd film. Pretty sad when the CW is doing superheroes better than your blockbuster is. They have a ham sandwich budget and they still make it look better than that trash film. Blade Runner 2049 had a 185 million dollar budget. Let that sink in... TFA I can at least say okay I see where the money went. It looks nice. That alone makes it a better film than Justice League.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes; I think this is the most important thing we can agree on.

I agree taht TFA looked nice; I just also think it is a crime against story telling what they did with the plot and characters. IMO I think it is one of the worst written films ever (especially when compared to other star wars films and other films that are rated around the rating TFA gets). And I think I make a pretty good objective based argument for why I see it that way. Justice League does look like garbage and is also a crappy story with crappy characters. I probably just don't judge it as harshly because (like with TLJ) for me the DCU was already ruined in Batman V Superman so the terrible quality just didn't bother me as much.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

See but already with TFA looking nice it already beats Justice League on that alone. Avatar is better also just because of visuals also. One of the worst written films ever? I disagree there. See though this is my point you constantly complain about people being fair. Objectively TFA is a better film than Justice League and I know you do not want to admit it but it is the truth.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Definitely Justice League is objectively worse if judged completely as an independent film. But as we discussed in other places you CAN NOT judge "EPISODE VII" compeletly independetly. How the 7th film in a series maintance continuity in the writing IS INARGUABLY an important story quality. TFA objectively does a terrible job of this; it does much more continuity damage than Justice League and since Avatar was an independent film as of now; there was no continuity to break. As I judge writing of Characters and Story as arguably (an objective based argument) the most important quality of a film and combine that the significance continuity has on writing quality; leads me to make an objective argument that TFA (at least for writing) is worse than either justice league or Avatar.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

You can not speak on how bad the continuity or story structure of Justice League since by your own admission you never watched it. Therefore this showcases your bias love of Star Wars is showing making you view it more slanted than Justice League which you have not seen. Continuity is a portion of writing you act like it is everything in film making. The Indiana Jones films have continuity issues which no one complains about.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

okay, that is true; I have not seen it; but there was not really that much continuity even established by Man or Steel or BVS. I have listened to a lot of youtube reviews and read a lot about justice league and no one complains about continuity. So i am assuming that it is not as egregious as TFA. But since you have seen both; I think you know that for a fact and are just being more disingenuous.

"The Indiana Jones films have continuity issues which no one complains about."

Depends on how egregious they are. in the first 3 I can't think of very many continuity issues. But also each one of those films have independent story arcs (like a James Bond film) so in these cases the continuity takes less precedents over a interconnected story. Again, a student of film should know this; this is like the most basics of writing.

But out of curiosity what are these continuity issues of Indiana Jones that you speak of? (not counting #4 because that one was hot garbage. )

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Youtube reviews mean nothing. It is what you got from the film. Which shows me you let youtubers do the thinking for you. Also too bad you can't say for sure if I am doing that since you have not seen it.

In Last Crusade he specifically mentions the arc of the covenant as a call back to Raiders. Yeah they are independent but the fact that they take place during specific time periods means they are connected albeit not as tight as other films.

Temple of Doom takes place before Raiders. Yet in Raiders Indy says he does not believe in any superstitious mumbo jumbo. Was he asleep during Temple of Doom?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Youtube reviews mean nothing."

More arrogance from your part.

I have a few youtubers who's opinions I respect. If they say something is bad I use my judgement and don't pay to see the film. I am not going to pay to see things I know are going to be bad. I would be an idiot if I did that. The point about my assumption is of all the criticisms Justice League gets, one of them is NOT continuity issues like TFA got. That is just a fact. Your condescending attitude is DISMISSED.

OMG really the arc is literally a 1 second line and there is the queue of music from raiders and Indy says "it's the arc of the covenant" and then "pretty sure" . There was no delay on it, it did not linger; there was no special emphasis given to it. It is was not a bad callback because you don't actually have had to see Raiders for it to matter because the flow of the scene was not interrupted. An example of a bad call back is the one they do in Kingdom of Crystal school where camera cuts away from the action and moves slowly down to reveal the arc in the crate. If you did not see raiders this would throw off the scene's pacing. Do you not understand pacing? You are supposed to be in film school; this is such basic stuff. what are they teaching you?

Indy still doesn't believe in supersticion in Last Crusader. One of the 'flaws' if you want to call it that with the Indy series is that his character arc is reset for each film and doesn't progress overall. This is not an egregious flaw though because each adventure is stand alone. The stories do NOT directly tie into each other. The continuity of Indy is like that of James Bond in that it is stand alone adventures that seldom intersect with the other independent stories/plots only the characters remain. That is NOT equatable to the type of sequel that TFA was.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Then you are not listening to enough youtube videos about Justice League. Also yeah I get not wanting to waste your money but you can not chime in and expect your opinion to have weight if you have not seen it. You do not know if it is a fact since you have never seen it. Your ignorance on this is dismissed.

Just because there is no zoom shot that goes dun dun dun does not mean it is not a call back. They are not connected as tightly but in the end there is loose continuity. I will continue more later.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Listen you disingenuous lying scumbag ; I am not on the justice league discussion board talking about that film. You want to talk about how bad that film is go to that discussion board.

All you attempts to defend TFA aren't even defenses; it is moving the goal post and deflections.

I am just about done with you. Yours are constant bad faith arguments.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Here is the start of discussing the actual qualities of TFA.

Production value, set design, choreography (in most scenes), and cinematography are all highest quality. Use of color is good but a bit 'on the nose'. Music score is uninspired but not bad (but arguably John Williams's worse score); this is a good video that I think analysis well what I thought was bad about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_8-dWSLDWI.

Despite the production value; I think the story, characters, pacing, frame rate, and issues with continuity are so objectively bad that they more than damage any redeeming quality you get from the production value.

I will start with this and see what your thoughts are.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Okay so despite the production value you feel the other elements are so bad it negates the films technical achievements? This video is discussing the music and why it is underwhelming. Care to share why the writing is so bad for TFA specifically. Not the others this one. Actually hold on let me finish this video actually.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

yeah sorry I just see that my sentence was poorly placed there. I should have specified the video was specifically about the music and not the other points I discussing. sorry if that caused confusion.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I agree about the music on the video actually. I felt the prequels despite being lackluster had really good soundtracks honestly.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Oh yes, the music of the prequels (despite the films being pretty awful) was arguably the best Williams has produced.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I agree the soundtracks deserved better films.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Care to share why the writing is so bad for TFA specifically"

Since you watched the video now I will answer this question. This is a summary of what I view as the objectively bad qualities of TFA:

- ruined the OT characters (Han loser regressed smuggler, Leia incompetent ineffectual general, Luke absent without good reason)
- reset the stakes to zero by returning the empire to the dominate force (and just renaming it First Order, thus negating the entirety of the OT plot); all without explanation or sensible reasoning (that it is possible) making it feel unearned. You get this 'it is just there deal with it' type of feel. "don't think just consume product".
- mary sue force lore breaking Rey (one of the worst characters ever put to screen); this "annoyingly good at everything" character that the plot bends over backwards (and breaks itself) to put her at the center of attention and never at a position of defeat or weakness.
- Turned the force into magic powers like magic system thus ruining the more mystical religious like feel of it
- was a complete and obvious rehash of the ANH plot almost to an absurd level.
- Did not provide likeable interesting characters to 'pass the torch' to. Finn had potential until they turned him into a bumbling side kick that had a personality not matching his background. Poe was supposed to die in the film and it shows. Leaving only Rey, who (see above for criticism).
-Weaker, wimpy pathetic versions of Vader and Tarkin. Plus Carbon cut out stand in for the Emperor; who was such a stand in character they got away with literally making him just a clone of the emperor.
- Bad scenes with bad acting (Rey meeting BB-8, Kylo and Snoke discussing Han scene, Hux speech, Maz's bar ) are just a few stand out.
-Horribly paced scenes, rushing from action scene to action scene (that also have terrible frame rate per second causing mind numbing visuals (but at least it is not shaky cam)).
-Boring uninspired music that told no story.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Disagree about Finn. I do agree that he is the best character in the new trilogy who should have been given more to do. I do not think he is a bumbling idiot though. He did have tons of potential that was not utilized.

Bad acting in the scenes you mentioned? What was bad about Kylo and Snoke's scene? Which Hux speech and what about Maz's bar? Also what was bad about Rey meeting bb-8?

Luke being absent is not really gone over in this film. What was bad about Han and Leia?

Horribly paced scenes? Which ones in particular. I thought the action sequences were well shot in this film. Nice wides and no shakey cam or quick cuts.

The rest I can see yeah the music was bland.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

He did have tons of potential and was easily the most interesting character. Which is why it was a shame they turn him into a slapstick joke when he is around the "annoyingly good at everything" Rey. As you say, the potential was not utilized, and that was a big failure in TFA.

Now I will not have enough space to answer all of those so I will take them one at a time:

"What was bad about Kylo and Snoke's scene"

It was overacted like crazy; the delivery of the lines was way overly exaggerated; especially the end. "The Droid is on the millenium Falcon, in the hands of your FATHER, HAAAANNNN SOOLLOOO!!!!" Just in case you didn't get it. This reveal was so incredibly stupid it spoiled any potential of the reveal the moment that Han calls out his son's name. 30 minutes in and JJ blew his load all over the screen; from then on, you know Han is a dead man just because of how on the nose it was, I would have been shocked if Kylo didn't kill him. So the lines were bad and that had a bad effect but in addition the acting was bad. both Snoke and Kylo are both wearing stuff (cgi gear for Sirkis and Helmet for Driver) but both fail in their body language; especially if you compare it to David Prowse in the Vader suit. The line delivery was painful; and because they had no real range to explore body language the scene ended up being poorly acted.

"Which Hux speech"

Way too derivative of nazi speeches (lazy effort to manipulate the audience's emotion) and Gleeson was channeling Hitler in a really on the nose and annoying (especially the voice) manner. Also the use of crazy eyes was a very poor choice. This might be more a failing on the casting then the actor; but he could not deliver a authoritarian type speech to save his life.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I agree that the reveal was too on the nose and revealed too early. This to me is a more a case of bad lines than acting. Comparing to David Prowse is where you are going wrong. Judge it for what it is rather than comparing to it's counterpart. Which is hard considering how derivative it is of a New Hope.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I mean the original has some rather on the nose dialogue as well. Hux I actually felt served his role well for this story.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

" Judge it for what it is rather than comparing to it's counterpart"

Whenever you judge something, objectivity, is based on what you compare it to. Any given thing can only be measured as 'good' when compared to something else, that is how you get a standard. "Good compared to what". You absolutely HAVE to compare Prowse's in suit performance to Driver's because otherwise you are not judging based on an objective standard and it can be a completely subjective preference.

Care to compare? For example, let us compare the speech Tarkin gives to the leaders in the Death Star ( i mean the delivery of the lines) compared to Hux's speech. They are very similar circumstances, but Cushing's delivery is chilling; Gleeson's is eye rolling.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"what about Maz's bar"

Maz's delivery was over the top in a bad way; many of her words and lines lingered too long creating a very strange off putting effect. Rey trying to challenge Finn for leaving she has almost no conviction in her delivery and her face is totally blank when he reveals he lied to her; almost like it didn't compute. Han was notably silent but when he did talk he seemed bored and uninterested in what was going on. Finn is the only one in that scene that actually gave a descent acting performance. Boyega is a solid actor, which is yet another shame they wasted that potential.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Rey was probably blank and emotionless when he told her because she was shocked. It probably did not compute at first. That is how some people react to certain truth bombs being dropped on them. I disagree about Ford sounding bored as well.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Well; the problem with that as her character is so blank we don't know if it is shock or if that is just her personality. You even have to through in a "probably" because you don't have any idea either what her reaction was supposed to be. hence my claim it was bad acting.

Care to explain why you disagree with my claim that Ford sounding bored?

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

So then you can't make an assumption like that without someone being able to disagree. You want to go with the negative answer each time. I said it probably did not compute at first which implies I am assuming it did not compute.

When Ford says I do not know but it isn't good. What about that sounded bored? Second he barely had any lines. If he were to have droned on in dull sentences I could see it.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That is my point though; the actor delivered such a blank response we can only 'assume' that it was a disconnected shock of some kind because there was literally no emotion or indication of what the character was going through, no eye movement; no distortion in the face, not even a frown. Her response was like that of a student in a class daydreaming.

what about that line sounded good, it was flat. He didn't sound like Han Solo, he sounded like Harrison Ford reading a line from a script. but I will admit maybe he was just so pushed to the background of that scene there was no opportunity for him to delivery hardly anything.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Also what was bad about Rey meeting bb-8?"

This is a long one. The scene makes no sense in so many different ways; but to focus on Daisy's delivery. Her reactions, facial expression and level of annoyance she is conveying do not match up with her character, her actions or her goal of helping the droid in the first place. Watch the scene on how she looks at the other scavenger. Is she angry with him? why is she angry with him? does he not have a fair claim to the droid as she does, after all she tries selling the droid mere hours later? Is she threatening him? is it a threat she snaps at him and gives him a look? There is no dialogue, I have no idea what she was trying to do. Then she in an annoyed and angry fashion quickly unties bb-8 and immediately sends him off (why the hell did you help him in the first place then dummy, he is just going to get captured again on his way to town; he is a droid that will get traded like junk, not a person). Setting aside the annoyance that she can understand binary droid 'speech', when BB-8 apparently asked to go with her she says with this annoyed laugh "ha, NO!" Why would she be annoyed, she just saved the droid why then get annoyed that the driod asks to go with her. It makes no sense. Then She has this reluctance in agreeing to let him but with a partially teeth barred, mouth a gap, head nod. Again I don't know what that face of was trying to say, it looked like disgust. I get the impression that Daisy had no idea what her character was supposed to be feeling in that scene. And it shows. That might not be a failing on the actor but the acting was bad.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Geez you got all this from this brief scene? You said she has no personality so if this is true how would any emotion match up with her character? If she is a scavenger as the movie tried to portray then isn't it kind of dog eat dog world? Therefore you would gladly take something from someone else for survival.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes, I watched this scene I think 5 times; the scene really bothered me when watching it so I had to really figure it out exactly what was bothering me.

At that point in the film, you don't really know she does not have a personality yet, this seems like another bad faith argument on your part. The point is her action in coming to BB-8's rescue in that isolated scene does not match her attitude towards the droid. and her character of being an isolated loner does not match her hyper aggressive demeanor towards the other scavenger.

What about the world was shown to be dog eat dog? Watch the opening there is a very stable system they have set up; before arrival of BB-8 there is no indication of competition between the scavengers. AND SHE DIDN'T TRY TO TAKE BB-8. As soon as she frees him she sends him off to the village where another scavenger will surely pick him up. IT MAKES NO SENSE. and frustratingly so.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Not a bad faith argument at all. How do you know Rey's personality at that point? You barely saw her. Why would should she not be aggressive towards a scavenger? Aren't scavengers typically like that?

Listen to what you are saying a scavenger.

a person who searches through and collects items from discarded material.

It kind of goes without saying scavengers are in competition with each other by their very name.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That is my point, you don't know her personality and her reactions are not matching her actions. everything we saw so far showed absolutely ZERO hostility between the scavengers; and there is no indication of why the other scavenger just gave up on his prize, he found BB-8 first. And AGAIN, I AM TALKING ABOUT HER ACTIONS IN THAT ISOLATED SCENE, for the purposes of that scene her overall personality is irrelevant. because you keep trying to push it towards a discussion of her personality when that has nothing to do with her behavior or attitude in that scene is why I think you are not acting in good faith. You seem to just be trying to pin me into some kind of corner so you can start throwing hokes at me.

But to what degree we don't know. there is a economy set up and in place and there is no fighting or hostility between the scavengers until that moment. from what I could tell there was a 'finders keepers' rule in place. Until that moment. otherwise we didn't we see any aggression or hostility between the other scavengers until that moment; did the director just forget to include the world building? probably. but the problem with that is people like you fill in the blanks with assumptions that have no indication of being accurate. You are speculating based on nothing.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Luke being absent is not really gone over in this film. What was bad about Han and Leia?"

Luke being absent (with a map to his location) does not fit his character. There was never going to be a satisfying reason why the hero of the OT was notably absent for the first order to rise, crush his school and destroy the new republic. Luke was a character that never gave up on his friends and never gave up on his family. THis is the guy that went up against the emperor to save his father's soul, who was arguably the 2nd most evil person alive. He would not abandon them. So his absence creates a real character problem; and makes him seem like a coward. Which is exactly what he turned out to be (but that is a TLJ discussion). Luke being absent for all the atrocities to happen would have to have an incredibly damn good reason and an even better reason why he left a map to himself, if he was waiting for the right time to strike back; leaving a map to your location the enemy could find is probably the stupidest thing you could do. So you can say that it didn't assassinate his character because you don't know why he ran; but it laid the ground work for the character to be destroyed; it loaded the gun and put it to the character's head. All TLJ did was pull the trigger.

Han's returning to being a smuggler completely undoes and nullifies his entire character arc of the OT. Setting his character back to stage 1 was character assassination in the most high. In addition to that they make him a semi senile smuggler who is like confused about the jobs he is doing and doing them with incompetence. Some legendary smuggler he is; and on top of that they made him a dead beat dad that skipped out on his wife and child when things went bad and he couldn't cope. Thus making him utterly pathetic.

Leia they make an incompetent general that is unable to motivate and launch an effective resistance until Rey comes around to fix it all for her. She is a failure; maybe not as obviously as Luke and Han but she is.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

So then Obi Wan hiding would make him a coward as well? Thing is you sound like you wanted Luke to take on a paragon role in this series. Since Luke accomplished these things does it make so that he can no longer be flawed? If that is the case then he should have been in this film from the start?

People often do bury themselves in work or what they used to do when things go bad. Was Han Solo supposed to be mr family man then? I am not even trying to be a jerk I am honestly asking what you wanted to see from Han? I myself am not a fan of the way they handled him either. Thing is though really think about what else is there for Han Solo? No one likes seeing the badass domesticated it takes away what made them such a compelling standout character.

You want my honest opinion? I thought from the beginning you are placing a loaded shotgun in your mouth by continuing with the old set of cast members. I get it everyone was dying to see Luke and the gang back again but the truth is their character arcs are over. Nothing you do is over going to feel as epic as their resolution to the character's arc.

I thought they should have set it far in the future without any of the old cast. I remember everyone hated me for that idea. Everyone was like why would you say that? I remember saying because it does not matter what sequel they provide you there is no continuation of Luke and the old gang that is going to satisfy people. Much like how when Terminator 2 ended the T800's arch is over there is no more. Fans get greedy. Move on to a complete new set with tiny homages acknowledging the original but do not clone and rely on new characters rather than nostalgia skittles being fed to you. Batman Begins is a reboot done correctly.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Totally different; we actually see Obi-wan and Yoda fail and they had no power or ability to resist. AND Luke and Obi-wan are not even close to the same character. This is a totally bad faith argument. This is not about him being flawed it is about him being out of character. Failing and accepting defeat are not 'character flaws' but it is out of character for Luke.

He should have been buried in the resistance or establishing anew republic fleet, not regressed back to a smuggler; and an incompetent one at that. He should have been in a more respecting role; how can he even be a smuggler after being a galaxy hero; doesn't smuggling require some discretion and anonymity; gonna be pretty hard for them to pull that off? No matter which way you slice it, having him return to a deadbeat loser smuggler is not only character assassination it also stupid and not thought out character assassination.

That is true; there story was complete, and if they couldn't come up with a good respectful way to include them; they should have just set the story hundreds of years later. But that would not be as successful in milking nostalgia. So it was a marketing gimmick with little concern to how it would affect the story; again making it a bad story.

I think it is possible to include the OT cast, but the only way you can do it and be respectful to the character is they have to start out in expected positions. Such as Luke leading a new academy, Han leading or setting up a new republic fleet and assisting with Leia leading a new senate and try to mop up the rest of the imperial remnants. In the first movie you can then sweep the carpet out from all of them, but you can't have that all happen off screen and put in some vaguely and not fully developed backstory that you don't even provide adequate world building for.

I agree Batman Begins is a solid reboot; I was not a big fan of it at the time; but it actually is a good film and a great reboot.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Not in a new hope we did not. You are going off if we had seen the prequels. I recall Luke giving up on lifting the ship when training with Yoda.

As I said even though I was not a fan the thinking was okay how can we get him back the old badass Han Solo. You already commented on him being a deadbeat dad so even if him being buried in the resistance was there you still have the deadbeat dad. So you have to make him play family man. Who wants to see that? I guarantee you people not be happy.

I disagree. Their character arcs are complete. There is no more to tell with those characters. Just like how there is no further story for the T-800. I know man you want more but do not let fandom blind you. They should not have included the original cast period.

Batman Begins is the best reboot I have seen in years. Only thing that comes close would be Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Mad Max Fury Road. Thing is I place Batman Begins at the top because of how deep and non derivative the screenplay was. It took a character we had seen a ton of times and did not rely on any past story blueprints. Do I have flaws with it yep but overall it is a win.

Blade Runner 2049 was the best sequel to a film in my book since The Dark Knight. It did not clone the original. It honored it by being well shot, solid acting and great music. How was it rewarded though box office dud... That is the reason we get stuff that is tired and recycled when you give an effort and try no one supports you. Even if you were not in love with Blade Runner 2049 you have to respect the fact that some damn effort was put into the film.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That is true that we don't see them fail in the OT; but it is totally implied that they did. They lost there was no choice but to go into hiding. That is a different circumstance than Luke; with Luke they had won. But failed (apparently since there is no world buidling) to secure the victory and that is when he quit. He didn't quit training or give up on the force in that moment. He was defeated in that moment and needed to collect himself and he also needed to believe. AND THAT IS WHEN HE WAS JUST STARTING. That is not the same person he was at the end of ROTJ. Again this seems like bad faith arguments.

Maybe a way of saying it is it was a combination of things. The combination of him a regressed smuggler, deadbeat dad that quit on his family and also incompetent at his smuggling job. It is fine that him and Leia are not together any more but the way it was suggested to have played out was not true to either of their characters; again we don't know exactly what happened so we only know what was implied. No one wanted to see Han as a smuggler again they just wanted to see Han with Chewie on the Falcon. That is it anything with that combination would have successfully milked nostalgia without assassinating teh character.

Just because their story arcs were complete doesn't mean you can't include them; they just can't be the focus anymore or have to upgrade to the paragon rule. But that is NOT how either the last jedi or the force awakens treated the OT characters. I am not as an absolutest as you, for me there is no "period" it is about how they execute it.

I agree each of those you mentioned are good reboots; but I think Dawn of the Planet of the apes is better than Rise; and Dark knight is better than Begins; but I think Rise and Begins set up the next chapter perfectly. Where as TFA does an awful job of both rebooting and setting up the next chapter.

the problem with BR2049, not too many people were interested in a sequel.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Okay I can see your point on this one. Thing is though how do you show Luke being flawed since his arc is now complete.

It is a fine line you are walking here. If they are not shoehorned into being the focus the old fans complain. If you barely have them as the focus then they are shoehorned in for money and nostalgia. Okay yeah they could execute it well but to me it is like jumping off the golden gate bridge. Could you survive yeah but not likely. That is why I say to hell with it leave it alone period. I guess that is where I am absolutest. People all the time would tell me well this time they will get Terminator right. I saw 3 sucked, salvation sucked, terminator Genisys sucked, I am burnt man no more. Same goes for the Alien franchise as well. After Aliens it is just bleh. Okay well Alien 3 I like the concept but unfortunately not well executed after that just shoot me please.

I agree Dawn and Dark Knight are better than their first films. I think TDK is better than Begins mainly because of it was so much better handled technically. The quick cut shakey cam disappeared in TDK. Dawn got to really feel like a film rather than a setup film. Either way though those reboots may not be perfect but they are good.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

You don't and you can't. My point is Luke was no longer supposed to be a 'character' to have an arc or have flaws (neither was Han). The only way to use them if you bring them back is as paragon character (like Obi-wan in teh OT or Gandalf). But JJ and Rian wanted their cake and eat too; so they tried to force arcs on characters that were already completed and in Han's case just reset his arc to zero. That was my complaint to begin with. I think you get it better now.

That is true; using them but as the mentor rule or very much reduced capacity might cause some backlash; but certainly not as much as regressing or assassinating the characters altogether. It is a fine line to try to use them; and if they coulnd't get it right (which they didn't) then I agree with you, they shoudl not have used them at all, because it ended up just being a nostalgia grabbing gimmick that ruined teh legacy of the characters and hurts their impact in the OT.

I agree 100% on this. they might not be perfect but they are about as close to perfect as you can get; especially TDK; as an action/suspense film it is almost a perfect film. I struggle actual to think of things that are imperfect about it, I have tried because subjectively I have a huge fondness of Tim Burton's Batman and therefore tried to find a way to justify it being better than TDK but I could not; TDK is just a flat out better film and I think it perfectly executes what it was trying to do.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Okay fair enough.

I just go with the safe approach and move on from them. If it were up to me as a film maker I would not touch those characters with a 100 foot pole. Sure you can call me chicken but I think some things are better left alone.

Batman 1989 I can give credit for pioneering the dark comic book film genre. It was the first dark comic book movie. Before that you had Donner's Superman which while great was not dark and gritty whatsoever. I feel like TDK perfected this groundwork though. I feel Burton's films rely more on style than they do substance. Now I am not complaining the style is most definitely nice. Thing is TDK I feel balances style and story in perfect harmony. Therefore you get a film with style and substance rather than just style.

See to me with both those rebooted films Rise and Begins I feel for every step they get wrong they get 3 steps right does that make sense?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I think I agree with you; since it is so difficult to get right and make satisfying and also not get the mob after you; it is better just to leave them alone. Which is strange that so many people want the originals back so badly, they don't realize what they are asking for (to recapture these brilliant moments from their past) can never be replicated to the same degree. So it is a flawed premise to begin with, they are setting themselves up for disappointment.

I agree 100%; Burton's Batman is very much a style over substance film. While the style is great, it did not have the "balance" that TDK has, You describe it nicely.

Yeah, I think that makes sense. For me the only real problem I had with Rise and Begins is they felt like prequels that were relying on an original that was not actually there yet, like they didn't 'feel' self reliant and self contained but did not have the 'main' part of the story in place yet. So they come across as feeling like set up film (or really long trailers) instead of self contained stories. That might be a 'subjective' thing on my part.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Here is another issue I have where you and I might part ways. Here is the truth, capturing the magic of the originals will never happen again. Asking a film maker to recapture that feeling is asking the impossible. I love Terminator 2 with all my heart, I loved seeing the T-1000 form into liquid metal, I loved seeing the T-800 go into the lava giving the thumbs up with that epic music. I would die to have that feeling again but as much as you want that to happen it will not happen.

What I do not get is someone like you does not like Rogue One. You claimed the prequels are better. Rogue One does not break any lore nor does it have a Mary Sue, nor does does it rely on nostalgia easter eggs throughout the entire thing. Is it perfect? Nope but that is the most competent Star Wars film we have gotten since the OT. People still hate it though largely because they are salty about the Disney trilogy. I judge films fairly and do not let my hatred of another bleed onto my judgement of another. The prequels break lore and continuity far more than Rogue One does. They also have terrible acting where as Rogue One has much better acting.

We agree here yes. Here is my rule. If you are going to be style over substance you better have damn good style that stands out. Burton's Batman, Sin City, and Mad Max Fury Road definitely have that. However as I said TDK has more going for it than just style.

I can understand that. I had a different problem I think. My issue with Batman Begins is the fight scenes are shot too close and there is too much quick cutting and shakey cam. Honestly that is one area I feel Nolan is sub par it is his fight scenes. Luckily in TDK this was much better handled. However I love movies like The Raid so fight choreography I am a bit of a snob about.

Rise I think my issue was Tom Felton as the human villain. Do I think he did bad? No but I felt like the antagonists were super cliched. I felt like I was like oh hey look here is Malfoy from Harry Potter. The archetype is so similar it is like nice of Malfoy to visit. Maybe that is just me I just feel like if you had cast another person not so soon and recognizable it would not have broken my immersion like that did. Continuing on next keep reading.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I love both Rise and Begins even though they are flawed. The great thing is both Dawn and TDK improve on everything their predecessor did. Which is why Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and TDK are great sequels. They both improve on everything while still honoring what came before. I personally feel the new Apes trilogy is underrated in general. I liked War of the Planet of the Apes also. Again see though this trilogy does not make anywhere near the cash Star Wars does even though it is way better.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

True on all points.

War (POTA) was good I agree; but I went into it with very different expectations. The marketing was bad for that film and suggested it was going to be more of a War film of Humans vs Apes, but what it was instead was more of a prisoner of War film. Great yes, but the misleading marketing made me not enjoy it as much as Dawn. I think Dawn is slightly better. But Yes the new POTA trilogy is definitely underrated.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

See that is the very reason I think I adored War. Yes it was not what I expected but it still was a very compelling well shot film with a great narrative. I agree they marketed the movie completely wrong. However it subverted expectations but still remained a solid film where as something like ROS subverted expectations and yeah was not good. I prefer Dawn by just a hair but I think War is a great third entry.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yeah, I think War was great but also give a slight edge to Dawn. But I think at least my first viewing of War was really thrown off because of the marketing. Expectations played a rule in my initial judgement but as I thought about it I realized that was not an accurate judgment of the films quality. It was a great movie.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Unfortunately though the new Apes trilogy does not get the attention it deserves. It is partially why I am interested to see what Matt Reeves does for his Batman film. If he can do for Batman what he did for Apes we might be in for a great flick.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I agree, the new Apes trilogy got forgotten way too fast. Hopefully in a few years it goes through a revival and gets a cult following like the originals had or like Blade Runner got.

I didn't know it was Reeves that was doing the new batman film. I have very little confidence in the twilight actor guy; but Reeves gives me hope it might not be an abomination.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

See but that is my other point. A movie can still be good or even better than more remembered films even if it is forgotten. Which is why I disagreed with you about Birdman. Which I think will be remembered as great but even if it is not that does not mean it is not a great film.

Watch Good Time and the Lighthouse. Honestly both of those films have made me change my mind on Pattinson as an actor. He truly is a talented up and coming actor. To be honest I like the choice especially after seeing those. Why you may ask? One it is unexpected which showcases Reeves is going off of talent rather than a marketable big name.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I don't think Birdmann is a bad film by any means; but it does come across as pretensions and artsy for the sake of being artsy. I enjoyed it just fine but when film 'feels' like it is trying to hard to be 'art' there is a level of disconnect the audience will have with it. It means that Birdman will likely not be remembered as a great film; which is a shame because it is a good film and I actually like the theme/message of it.

I have so many movies on my watch list and so little time; I am still like 5 years or more behind. I will say this; I don't want to write off Pattinson completely; but recently I heard he is not going to work out for the rule of batman; that is concerning. Anyway the DC films are such a mess I don't really have much interest in any of them. (and as of Endgame I am done with Marvel too).

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Also again not true. King of Comedy took how many years to get recognition? Birdman will be looked back on as the career best film for Michael Keaton. Also considered a great film.

I put trust in the director. It has a good director as well as a good cinematographer behind it. The cast so far is looking good. Paul Dano, Colin Farrel, Andy Serkis, Zoe Kravitz are talented people. You never know that could Pattinson's way to get people's attention. I personally believe that is a ruse to get people all riled up. Also this is not connected to the DCU thank God. See the difference is I knew Man of Steel and BVS would be bad from the get go.

Personally I have never been a fan of Zack Snyder's work. Also when they made BVS I knew it was just an attempt to capitalize on the success of teaming up heroes like Marvel did. Also that concept is just not interesting. See with Batman facing Superman it is too one sided one way or the other. The only way Batman has a shot is if there is kryptonite. So if kryptonite is there Batman wins easily, if it is not Superman wins easily. With Iron Man vs Captain America the power and strength is a close enough difference that the outcome is not predetermined. Since it is almost even it makes the fight engaging. One sided fights get boring quick. Could it be bad? Of course like anything. I think though that Reeves is far more reliable than Snyder. Also the fact that it is not being shared and just being focused on Batman is great. Honestly I do not want a shared universe anymore. Marvel did it, and did it well. Now lets go back to solo stories that are more deep and personal, rather than tv show format that always ends up like a video game side scroller beat'em up with a gigantic crowd vs cgi army.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Maybe it will; maybe it won't. Only time will tell. My suspicion is it will keep slipping further and further into obscurity. King of Comedy got a cult following because Scorsese got more and more popular as did Robert De Niro; usually 'pretentious' artsy films do not get that kind of recognition. And Alejandro González Iñárritu does not have the type of following Scorsese has. So I really really doubt it will ever be a 'recognized' film.

I guess we will see how it gets reviewed. I doubt I will see it in theaters; I just don't have much interest in another Batman reboot. there needed to be at least another 10 years after the last Nolan Dark Knight film before doing another one.

I liked 300 and Watchmen but those are mostly visual fodder and not much else. but other than that I have not enjoyed Snyder's work. yes, the way they did the DCU was like a pathetic desperate attempt to rush mimic the success of MCU and it showed. I agree the DC comics should not have tried to mimic the MCU.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Is that why he won back to back directing Oscars? He is considered a great director and has good films under his belt. The other being the Revenant. If it was not recognized why did we study it in film school a few months ago?

I am optimistic. Matt Reeves is a true talent.

I agree here.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Because film school and the oscars are a bunch of pretentious full of themselves and 'look how deep and arsty we are" butt holes. The oscars have been a joke for 20 years. That is why films like Crash, Moonlight, Shape of Water, Green booke, spotlight, etc win best picture; total f'ing joke.

I agree that Matt Reeves is a true talent; to bad he hasn't one any Oscars he actually deserves one. for either Dawn or Wars.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

So you have more to offer than a film school? I sincerely doubt that. Nice generalization by the way. So you have seen Moonlight then? Interesting you never saw it by your own admission. So your opinion on this means nothing. I do not always agree with the Oscars but in the end this is the second time you have commented on something without having seen it. Notice I have not done that. You put your foot in your mouth again.

Yep Reeves is great.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"So you have more to offer than a film school? I sincerely doubt that

See, arrogance and full of themselves. "We are in film school, we are so much more enlightened then the ignorant plebs". Thanks for proving my point even more about college classes. People go to college to get ignorant and arrogant about it. Often times you get much more; and better information by READING FREAKING BOOKS. College you get the professors' or schools hand picked knowledge and is often even worse information than google. Try learning something for yourself instead of just 'believing' what you are told in school. BTW (I have completed college (major in computer science, minor in economics and physics). So I know it is 95% bullshit.

"So you have seen Moonlight then?"

Content and subject matter actually plays a part in the quality. A film that was pretentiously about a black gay teenager struggling with his 'identity' was 100% a political statement film. Maybe it is a fine enough film; but a film that is making such a political statement (and openly making it) cannot shed it modern sensibility and that fact alone breaks immersion. It is not a film; it is a sermon. Such films should never be considered for the annual awards; because their is no way to know if they are being judged on merrit or on modern emotional appeal. Tell me in 10 years will people say moonlight deserved the oscar; most are already saying no; same with Shape of the Water. So I stand by my statement; it does not deserve oscar consideration. Maybe in 20 years it came be considered for some kind of honorary award if it is actually a good film.

"You put your foot in your mouth again."

At least I am not being a condescending passive aggressive arrogant douchebag. Your passive aggressive insult is DISMISSED.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I asked you a question. You talk like you personally have more to offer than film school. You have completed college in computer science but not film school. I have read tons of books my friend. A class is able to teach me hands on techniques and help me network a book can't do those things.

Absolutely false. To quote a famous person it is not what it's about it is how it's about it. Schindler's List is making a blatant political statement as well. So it should be dismissed off that alone in your mind. Schindler's List is considered a cinematic classic. There are plenty of films that attempt to appeal to that emotion and fall flat. You remind me of those people that say meh The Dark Knight should not be considered for best picture I mean after all it is just a Batman movie... This implies that the only way for a film to be great is fit under specific genres or story themes. Absolute BS and you know it. Since you have not seen it your view is dismissed.

Do not ever lecture me about being objective and fair when you will dismiss movies you have never seen, and will dismiss them and say they should not be up for awards simply because of their themes. Word of advice do not speak on things you have not seen. Oh wait get your youtube videos to feed you information on what to think. You should be just fine. Forget examining it yourself.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

You talk like a person that thinks film school makes you smarter than others. School does not teach you shit. and what film books have you read? the ones the school told you to. The only thing college IS good for is networking. You don't learn shit until you actually work the job.

NO Schindler's List is NOT telling a blantant political statement. It IS A TRUE STORY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED 50 YEARS BEFORE THE FILM WAS MADE AND WAS BASED ON A BOOK ABOUT A PERSON THAT DID SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE SAME THING. SUCH A PIECE OF SHIT GOAL POST MOVING.

Can you offer any but bad faith arguments?

You concession is noted as well. Your goal post moving and bad faith argument is dismissed. I did not bring up these other films; you did. I am here trying to talk about the objective bad qualities of star wars TFA and you constantly try to muddle up the discussion by bringing up other things and then focus on those. Just bull shit sophistry . Thanks for proving yet again my generalizations about TFA defenders (whether or not you think it is a good film) are a bunch of condescending pr!cks that have no intention of debating in good faith.

"Oh wait get your youtube videos to feed you information on what to think. You should be just fine. Forget examining it yourself."

You condescending passive aggressive insult is dismissed. When you are cornered and can't argue try insulting but since you are too much of a coward to do it upfront you do these pathetic little passive insults. reported for being a douche.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I don't think we disagree on that; recapturing that magic is impossible and people that are hoping for it to happen is one of the reasons Disney made TFA the way they did. And it ended up producing a very crappy film.

I never said I don't like Rogue one, and I never said Rogue One is a bad movie. I think you confused me with someone else. I rate rogue one about equal with Revenge of the Sith; there are some issues with editing where you can tell there was different director on some scenes; which disrupts the flow of the film; especially at the end. But other than that Rogue one is a solid movie. Not great but solid.

Good point on Batman Begins the fight scenes are definitely not as tightly shot as in TDK.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I would not say it is crappy but yeah like I said no doubt it is a product.

Disagree on rating it the same as Revenge of the Sith. Yep the editing was jarring but I take that over the awful acting from Natalie Portman as well as Hayden Christensen. Thing is people will not even give Rogue One being solid. They hate the Disney brand so much they tie it in with the others. You are supposed to be able to judge a movie individually without going in with a curved view.

Glad you agree with me on that. You want great examples on how to film, or edit a fight look no further than The Raid films.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

IDK, based on the things I have pointed out; it is pretty obvious garbage; if not just for the characters and stories; but the other stuff I point out.

Hmm, tough call; Portman was on snooze for ROTS; but IMO Christensen's performance and emoting was much improved over ATOC. Granted he delivered many of the more cringe dialogue poorly and not quite as good as McGregor's delivery but it was not that bad. I think so many people hated Christensen in ATOC they never even gave him a fair shot in ROTS; much like 'disney haters' never gave Rogue one a shot. I agree you should be able to judge a movie individually; but that is not necessarily true for trilogies or films that 'rely' on each other to complete the story. For those you have to judge them based also on what comes before and after. Franchise films to get the judgement you have to establish the standard, the standard is inevitably the other films in the franchise.

I keep hearing about the Raid for its fight choreography combined with brilliant cinematography and editing. I really need to watch it to observe that quality. It would be a good example to use when establishing high quality standard.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Here is a problem with your way of criticizing it. If someone is a professional film critic they can review tfa without seeing the original Star Wars. There is no requirement that says in order to review tfa you have to have seen the original trilogy.

I disagree on Hayden Christensen wholeheartedly! That performance was absolutely dreadful. Seriously you call Ford bad in tfa? Hayden Christensen feels like a kid in high school who thinks he is edgy. Cringe the entire time. Not to mention his chemistry with Portman was atrociously bad also. I personally feel people went easier on Revenge of the Sith because of how far the bar had been lowered after the first two were so bad. Again not necessarily true. You can review tfa without seeing any other Star Wars film.

The only downside to the Raid is it kind of ruins action scenes in other films because of how well executed it is. Therefore action sequences especially in Hollywood will bore you and not impress you after seeing it.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

But that is just it; TFA is episode 7; and directly follows films that very well known. It does depend on the OT for the nostalgia or there will be all these call backs that the film goes out of the way to pay extra attention to that would go right over the viewers head if they were not familiar with the OT (Vader's burnt mask, Luke/Anakin's lightsaber, the Falcon, the OT characters, etc). Be fair in your judgement, TFA absolutely depends on the viewer having seen the originals or it would be a nonsensical call back to nothing. They even marketed as a film heavily relying on the originals. I think your assessment here is inaccurate.

I disagree; I think you are conflating badly written dialogue with delivery and at the same time completely ignoring body language and facial expressions. There are scenes in which Hayden is not even speaking but you can clearily see what the character is thinking by the facial expressions. That is actually fairly good acting. To be fair though he did have several lines that were delivered poorly. When he calls Padme a "Liar!" it is badly delivered. But he also has some really good delivery of bad lines (when he turns and faces Obi-wan and says "you turned her against me" look at the pain, anguish and betrayal on his face. Nothing Daisy does comes even close to that. Hayden may have fumbled here and there but at least he gave a shit; I can't say the same for Ford, how didn't even bother to have facial expressions. I agree though, Portman ad Christensen had literally zero chemistry. I don't think you can review TFA without knowing the originals because of the heavy reliance on the call backs and the literal zero world building. TFA's setting is not set up within the film, it expects the viewer is already familiar with the setting. So no, I disagree.

lol, it is that good? well maybe I should avoid it then. Nah it is okay though; I don't much need great action in films; I care more about story and characters then action.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

It does not matter if it relies on callbacks to the original. You as a film critic do not have to prove you watched the originals in order to give a review on the film. That is not how it works. Does a critic need to see every film in existence in order to review movies? Now to judge it as a part of the series you would need to see those older films but not as an individual film.

Ha absolutely not! Just because you can clearly see what emotion the actor is going through or trying to convey does not make it good acting. Oh because someone scowls when they are angry that makes it good? Facial expression is only a part of it. Line delivery also comes into play and he had some terrible line delivery in Revenge of the Sith. Liar! Don't make me kill you! You will not take her from me! From my point of view the Jedi are evil! Did you seriously say you turned her against me was a good line? Really? I hated that line so badly! He feels like a teenager trying to be edgy. I would take Daise Ridley over him all day everyday. Ford worse than Hayden yeah I am dismissing that. So then in your book you need proof you have seen the originals before you review the film? Interesting logic.

Action is the cherry on top but man when it is well executed it is awesome.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That is just insane to say; so many scenes are set up a certain way to call back and add emphasis to the call back. It is bad filmaking to do that if you think the audience isn't going to pick up on the call back. For example, the intro scene to the millennium falcon in TFA would be a bad scene if you didn't know what that ship was. There is a certain amount of emphasis given in the music queues and the way the shot is framed that adds a large amount of emphasis to it. if you were judging the film independently you would say that was a bad scene because you have no idea why there is emphasis given to this thing and it would be jarring and take you out of the film. And that is just one example the scene with Luke's Lightsaber, Darth Vader's Helmet, etc all don't work unless you know what the call back is.

Emoting emotions is far better than blank expressions. and emoting and body language are almost as important as line delivery. The line was delivered fine; you are being unbiased in your judgement. Too much Prequel hate I can sense in you. But the line was not the important thing; the facial expression is nearly perfect. But then it is followed by another bad one "you will not take her from me" was horribly delivered. So I will say this. While Christensen was inconsistant in his performance; Daisy was consistent (but consistently bad).

" I would take Daise Ridley over him all day everyday."

Because you are biased and not judging acting fairly.

"So then in your book you need proof you have seen the originals before you review the film? "

No, I am saying the way the film was shot a large number scenes are delivered in a way that expects the audience to know what the call back is. If you didn't see the OT these call backs should make those scenes stand out in a odd way to you and you should review them negatively.

That is true; when the action is done well it can really add a touch of flavor.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

See I completely think you are wrong in saying that you would call that shot to the millennium falcon bad because emphasis is put on it and you would not know. Skyfall has callbacks to the old Bond movies. You do not need to see those films in order to judge Skyfall as a film on it's own. Superman Returns has many callbacks to the Donner films you can still judge it on it's own. Many people saw Aliens before Alien and they liked it just fine.

Your opinion. Key word almost. Line delivery of Christensen was bad throughout all the films. No Daise was not consistently bad. Now who is the one being biased? Why are her lines not as mocked as much as Christensen's are? Which ones stand out as bad as his sand line? Hayden also had an idea of what his character should be. You are playing young Vader. Daise got what she was given as it came along. She can deliver lines way better than he can.

Nope you are now placing your opinion on a pedestal. I prefer Daise Ridley you prefer Christensen. Fyi I have checked out his other work such as Jumper and he sucked in that also.

Lol yeah no I completely disagree again. So because you did not understand the call back you should review the film negatively? Who determines that? You? Do not say should review it any way. That is an arrogant thing to say. You can turn it around and say well since I did not understand the call backs I review it more positively. How many people understood Blade Runner upon first watch but still reviewed it positively?

Agree here.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

You are wrong; Skyfall and Superman Returns' call backs do not go out of their way to emphasis a shot like TFA does. and the superman films are not interconnected like the Star Wars "episodes" to say you can judge these films independently would be like saying you should judge The Two Towers independently; or better yet only judge the single stories of Pulp fiction and not the complete film. You can't really do that; it is supposed to be and was marketed as, one complete story. So you can't just put the other films out of your mind when judging it because how it relates to the other films in the series IS an aspect of its actual quality. And I like how you try to deflect by bringing up callbacks from other films but don't discuss at all my criticism of the emphasis placed on those call backs runs directly contrary to YOUR IDEA that you should judge TFA completely independently of the other Star Wars films. This is called a DEFLECTION.

Disagree. Certain lines Christensen delivered just fine, not great but fine enough. But he did a real good job with the body language and facial expression. Far, Far better then the constantly blank, or eyes wide, or mouth a gap-scowl that Daisy had. And that was the range of her 'acting'. Stop judging Christensen only on his bad lines from the 2nd film; judge it independently. See what I did there? "The garbage will do!" "This is the ship that made the kessle run in 14 parsec""we've got one" "You, you're afraid that you'll never be as strong as DARTH VADER!". All shit delivery of shit lines. Why are you so quick to judge Christensen but so quick to overlook Ridley? Prequel hate much. Just because the prequels were bad does not mean you can overlook the flaws of TFA; judge it independently.

out space...

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Superman Returns does not go out of it's way to emphasis a shot like TFA. You and I both know that is a bold faced lie. The opening of Superman Returns has flashbacks of Marlan Brando as Jorel in the fortress of solitude. Why put emphasis on this in the opening. Your lie is dismissed. A callback in and of itself is not bad. You seem to think that because they emphasized callbacks it by default makes it bad. So then in your head no critic can write a review of tfa if they have not seen the other films. Just be up front and honest that is what you think.

Nope Christensen sucked all the way through. The fact that you arguing his case makes me question your ability to judge films objectively. None of those lines come close to being as bad as the ones Christensen delivered. I am quick to judge him because he ruined an iconic character in Darth Vader. To be fair Lucas also gave him awful lines but honestly his acting made it far worse. Where did I say TFA was good because the prequels are bad? Do not strawman please.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

WTF are you talking about; you are the one that brough up superman returns as comparison. I didn't you disingenuous little pr!ck. You have proved so many times you are not arguing in good faith; this is more proof. AND I was arguing that the call backs of Superman Returns were NOT as egregious as TFA. So you are the liar. You are totally missing the point and you should ask for you film school tuition money back. You don't know shit about film.

No he didn't he can at least act with his face and body; unlike Horse girl.

"I am quick to judge him because he ruined an iconic character in Darth Vader."

So you are a Rey/TFA defender because you are one of the "george lucuas raped our child hood" crowd. Just because the PT sucked doesn't mean TFA was great or Good. TFA is worse but you don't want to admit it because of you bias against the prequels and you fell for cheap nostalgia grabs of TFA.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I did and you openly said that it did not emphasize certain shots as callbacks like TFA did. The opening to Superman Returns is a blatant callback to the Donner Superman film. So no it emphasizes it just as much. Lex's whole scheme in that movie even is the same and even repeats lines winking at the audience. Oh you are insulting me now with name calling. How old are you? Not once have I lobbed at insult at you. Proof you are losing the debate.

Yeah he did. He completely sucked the whole way through. Sorry but I can't get behind anything about that performance being good.

Another strawman. I never even said TFA was a good film I just do not think it is one of the worst in cinematic history like you like to claim. Honestly I do not even think the prequels are some of the worst films in cinematic history. Your strawman is dismissed.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"The opening to Superman Returns is a blatant callback to the Donner Superman film. So no it emphasizes it just as much."

It is no where near as blatant and does mess with the pacing of the scene like TFA does. So you are wrong. in Returns it was more like a recreation (that is not the same as a call back and doesn't require the audience see the original to understand the call back).

"you are insulting me now with name calling. How old are you? Not once have I lobbed at insult at you."

You called me a liar; you know is some cultures that is an insult. So if insults are proof that one is loosing a debate than you are the first offender. I know what you are doing; you are trying to spin this to make me look bad and frustrate me so you can turn around and say I am being immature or report me for insults. it is what pathetic passive aggressive people that have poor argumentation; they use sophistry and condescension to irritate their opponent.

If you don't think Christensen had good emoting and good body language then you don't understand acting. His line delivery was mix bag of okay and shit; never good or great but okay.

"I never even said TFA was a good film..."

I didn't say you think it is good; i said you are a typical Rey/TFA defender. And that is true and not a strawman; I don't think you understand what a strawman is. A strawman is a 'fake' opponent or position that doesn't actually exist that you argue against to make the other person appear dumb; I have done no such thing, I have countered you bad arguments perfectly at every turn. Your passive aggressive condescending lie/insult is DISMISSED.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Way to side step my point about Lex's entire land grab scheme and some of the lines he says that are a direct callback to Donner's Superman. Lex asks his assistant in the Donner version what his father used to say to him. She says get out, Lex asks his assistant the same question she says you are losing your hair he then says before that she then says get out. Lex says mind over muscle in both versions. He says people need more land and will pay through the nose for it. This callback is just as blatant if not more blatant than the callback to the millennium falcon. Want proof take a look at these two clips.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl9409NQPuU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnP8nfRB4g4

I called you out on your lie. I did not say you were a liar period but that was a bold faced lie. I have no interest in reporting people who do a good enough job of making themselves look silly on their own.

Oh gee the good old if you do not agree with my opinion you do not understand argument. Should have known this was coming. I am dismissing this. Christensen sucked in these films. Guess what so did Natalie Portman and she is a great actress. She killed it in Black Swan. It shows what a lackluster writer and director Lucas is.

Your quote.

Just because the PT sucked doesn't mean TFA was great or Good.

I never said it made TFA great or good. I simply disagree when you say it is one of the worst films in history. I honestly do not even believe the prequels are the worst films in history. I have argued with people many times that the prequels while not my cup of tea do have good merits though few and far between. Your baseless assumption and strawman is dismissed. I argued Rey being better than Anakin in the prequels. I argued Daise Ridley being better than Christensen. This got you salty and made you make an assumption. Rey being better than Anakin in the prequels is no high bar to clear believe me. I think Rey is a weak hero protagonist. I just thought your criticisms of her were off base not all but a lot. Want to make any more baseless assumptions?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Your entire attempt to conflate TFA with superman returns is one big side step. Every post you try to pull further away from discussing TFA (the actual subject of the conversation) because you do not have good defenses for it. And I am done going down you pathetic little rabbit hole of obscuring the subject.

Saying someone lied, IS CALLING THEM A LIAR; you freaking moron. I said that superman returns does not emphasis shots like TFA does; you said it does then turned around and tried saying that I said it does. THAT MAKES YOU THE LIAR. then when I called you out on it you called me immature and said I through insults like I did it first. Such a disingenuous tactic to make me look bad and yourself look good. Your sophistry is DISMISSED.

"Christensen sucked in these films."

then you are not being objective; line delivery he did poorly; but there are other things he did well; and i don't even like the performance I just recognize the effort and effect. Daisy sucked in the sequel trilogy from beginning to end. To be fair, she was fine during her opening montage when she was not talking or doing anything; but that is it; rest was utter trash.

"I never said it made TFA great or good. I simply disagree when you say it is one of the worst films in history."

It IS the WORST star Wars film; and it may be hyperbolic but it is a terrible film; maybe not as bad as justice league but people don't defend justice league like they do TFA, that makes have an additional level of frustration and adds too the 'attacks' of its quality. When something stinks like shit and everyone calls it shit; no need to draw extra attention to the shit. When something is shit and people say it is like nice flowers; then it calls attention to the details.

"This got you salty and made you make an assumption."

because Daisy was objectively worse. Her line delivery was not hardly any better and she can't act with her body or face.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

No it using an example you obviously are incapable of understanding. I overestimated your thinking ability.

Which you did lie. You need to call a spade a spade otherwise I would be the liar.

No I said it does not emphasize shots like tfa did? I questioned it because that is not true. Notice how you never responded to my two youtube clips proving this. Also through? You mean throw? Man someone needs to get back in school. Your ignorance of this is dismissed.

Oh yes I am being objective he sucked bad in those films. Ruined an iconic character. Then you are not being objective about Daise Ridley. Since you do not want to be objective I will not be either. Practice what you preach.

No it is not. I have already showcased the good qualities of that film. People blindly defending it has no bearing on the quality of the film. You get angry and rate tfa lower because you do not like people defending it which is subjective critiquing.

No she was objectively better with far better line delivery.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

It was not a good example; so maybe you didn't overesetimate my ability to think but your own.

"Which you did lie."

No I didn't, you are the one that lied. Go look through chat dumb one. You are the one that suggested callbacks in other films were just as bad as in TFA; and I disagreed. That was the whole point; but you seem to be too stupid to even realize your error.

"Your ignorance of this is dismissed."

Typos are not ignorance; your attempt at passive insults is DISMISSED. I am typing rapidly and not proofreading. big deal. At least my content is not ignorant. Also english is not my first language and I am not typing on a U.S. keyboard so yeah.

" rate tfa lower because you do not like people defending"

No, they make bad arguments defending the good qualities, like you have demonstrated; based in ignorance and conflate objective with subjective. And that causes me to double down even more in my position because of how bad your arguments are.

"No she was objectively better with far better line delivery."

No she was objectively worse but had better line delivery. You are subjective in your review of Christensen because:
"he sucked bad in those films. Ruined an iconic character. "

Typical TFA defender; 'TFA was good because George Lucas rapped my childhood' seriously you are cliche joke.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

" Want to make any more baseless assumptions?"

Oh there are a lot of assumptions I can make; but they wouldn't be baseless and I don't want to get banned.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Oh you have done a ton already. I am done talking with you. Honestly after this silly logic I am glad Star Wars got bought by the mouse. I hope these films keep being terrible to you and you never see a good Star Wars film again in your life. I look forward to you wasting your life on complaining about TFA It brings me joy. Go review romantic comedies with Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston. Since you know you have no time for Moonlight but you do have time for films like that. Good day bud.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

" Go review romantic comedies with Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston. Since you know you have no time for Moonlight but you do have time for films like that. Good day bud."

Now you are stalking my other reviews? that is just messed up behavior. if you noticed I gave it a bad review; and also I have a wife that likes those types of movies. Maybe one day when you are married to something besides your hand you will know what I am talking about. But I doubt that will happen until you man up a bit and accomplish something. Ihave already accomplished everything I set out to do, so I can justify wasting my time in a discussion board? how about you filmschool student? you accomplish anything yet?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"I prefer Daise Ridley you prefer Christensen.

I will say this, objectively; Daisey did have better overall delivery but wooden to bad body language and expression. Christensen's line delivery was worse but his emoting and body language was far better. AND at least he can do the action and fight scene choreography. For an action rule that is pretty important; Daisy Ridely was more than atrocious at this.

" Fyi I have checked out his other work such as Jumper and he sucked in that also."

Nope, I am judgin his performance in Episode III independent of any other film. Hypocrite much dude? seriously? all that bashing me for not judging TFA independently but than you do the same thing I do but for Christensen and in films not even related to Star Wars. what a blatant double standard.

"So because you did not understand the call back you should review the film negatively? Who determines that? You? "

What the hell are you talking about? I am talking about how the shots were done in TFA. The shots gave special emphasis to OT items and vehicles and characters. IF you were not familiar with the OT these scenes would feel out of place and the audience would not understand the significance. Making it a bad shot. therefore you have to have scene the OT to properly review TFA. When a scene gives significance to something the audience does not understand in this way; it is bad because it breaks immersion. Come on man; you are film student you should know this stuff. What are they teaching you anyway?

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Fight choreography has to do with the choreographer now doesn't it? I have seen talented martial artists get screwed up because the choreography was bad or it was badly shot or edited.

It shows you are allowed to bring in outside sources to judge an individual film but others can not. Do not bring up continuity issues and I will not bring up Christensen's other work.

Address what I said about Superman Returns. A film you said made no emphasis on callback shots.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

no you idiot; if you watch you can see how other people are reacting and expecting her to be in certain places or moving certain ways and she is off queue; all the time. This means it is not the choregrapher that screwed up but the actor's inability to do the moves and choregraphed. You know this is the case because stunt people and other actors have to go out of their way to make up for her; either by slowing swings or moving in odd ways to avoid hitting or tripping over her. Again, get your film school money back; you have not learned a thing.

I was pointing out your hypocrisy numb nuts. You don't judge a series of films that have (or are supposed to have) one interconnected story because continuity matters.

" A film you said made no emphasis on callback shots."

Again you disingenuous pr!ck I didn't say that; you did. Your quote:

"Superman Returns does not go out of it's way to emphasis a shot like TFA. You and I both know that is a bold faced lie."

So who is the liar? what is this some kind of game where you are trying to frustrate me and tell different lies from post to post while calling me a liar? "Accuse them that which you are guilty" much.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Nope we are talking about TFA not Last Jedi remember? You hold me to that standard you will be held to the same.

Well I guess we are both guilty of that then huh? Then come out and say it. As a film critic we need to prove to arflexit that we have seen the OT. Only then can these critics write their review.

Your quote.

You are wrong; Skyfall and Superman Returns' call backs do not go out of their way to emphasis a shot like TFA does.

Also the Superman movies are interconnected. It is obvious Returns takes place after Superman 2. Go ahead and deny this.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Nope we are talking about TFA not Last Jedi remember? You hold me to that standard you will be held to the same."

Do you not realize that you are the one that made the argument that films should be judged independently . And that i disagree with that is series films that have interconnected stories. Your really need to keep you arguments straight; this is getting annoying. I feel like i am arguing with different people. And I was talking about TFA; I just said that her poor job of following the choreography is more obvious in TLJ; but it is still present in TFA.

"As a film critic we need to prove to arflexit that we have seen the OT"

That is NOT what I said. You condescending hyperbole is dismissed. I am saying that if you are being an objective critic, and you have not seen the OT, then those call back scenes should cause you to view the film more negatively. If it doesn't you are being a bad critic.

Exactly; I am making the argument that the call backs don't actually interupt the flow of a scene like in TFA. Anyone that is being objective would know what is going on. You just proved my point. Thanks I gues.

"It is obvious Returns takes place after Superman 2. Go ahead and deny this."

Yes, but they are NOT interconnected stories the same way Star Wars or LOTR or even "the matrix" series are. Also since Superman returns was also one of those weird reboots were it tries to 'remove' other films in the series makes it tougher to compare. TFA is billed as a continuation of the primary story (episode VII) and is not 'undoing" other episode 7's to do so. So they are not equatable examples and the comparison is ridiculous to begin with. I was just being kind to humor you bringing it up because I didn't want to derail the conversation; but since you are becoming more and more annoying and obviously not arguing in good faith, I will drop the 'nice' act. You comparison was stupid in the first place; seriously get your money back from film school

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I did make that argument but since you want to hold me to that standard I am going to make you abide by that same standard. Since you wanted to judge it as a whole I figured okay then it is okay to use outside sources. So if we are judging it individually as I said before then lets discuss TFA. I see no issue with the way the choreography was handled. Nor did I see an issue with Ridley's performance of the choreography in tfa.

That is basically what you are saying. You can beat around the bush that is what you are conveying it is obvious. If it does not effect you negatively then you are a bad critic? What if you say I did not understand the callbacks but judge every other aspect of the film?

Superman 2 takes place right after the first one. Almost no time passes. That is as interconnected as it gets. Superman Returns is a sequel ignoring part 3 and 4. That is the only difference between TFA and Superman Returns. The comparison actually makes complete sense. I did not pay money for film school I got a scholarship. Your insult does not apply here and is dismissed.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"I see no issue with the way the choreography was handled. Nor did I see an issue with Ridley's performance of the choreography in tfa."

because you are not looking correctly and don't know what to look for. Maybe you didn't get to choreography in your film school yet. One day the professor will explain it to you; too bad you can never have an independent thought.

No that is not what I am saying. your 'putting words in my mouth' is dismissed. If callback interrupts the flow it is either bad callback or the film expects you to have seen what the call back is referring to; it is simple. But since you are being purposefully dense I can see what you are doing.

The 2 films are not interconnected; the stories are totally different; Superman 2 is NOT Superman episode 2 or part 2. And since superman 2 was such a productive mess with Donner's cut getting all jumbled this is a horrible example to try to conflate with TFA. They are not films that are comparable; they are contrasting examples in almost every way.

" I did not pay money for film school I got a scholarship. Your insult does not apply here and is dismissed."

jesus, they give scholarships for film school? what a waste of other people's money. Well they should pull your scholarship then, if I evaluated your film knowledge you would fail.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I took many fight choreography lessons in film school already. It is why I enjoy films like the Raid my man.

Superman 1 and 2 are interconnected. Are you seriously denying this? The beginning of Superman the movie setup Zod's entire story arc you know the entire theme and story of Superman 2. It is why they play the clip of Zod being banished to the phantom zone from the first movie at the beginning of the second film.

Lol your attempt at insult backfired. I hope I do not turn into a salty unkind person like yourself. I am still young but good thing I am not there yet. If you evaluated film knowledge you would tell people to listen to youtubers and judge films before seeing them. Good thing you are not in that position huh. Notice I never say if because that is a pointless thing to say. You aren't so do not give hypothetical situations it makes you look bad.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Then you would know should be able to recognize when an actor is off queue. If you can't you are not paying close attention.

The opening of Superman 1 had nothing to do with the rest of the film; it could have been removed and saved as a prologue for superman 1. So they are connected but not to the degree the star wars films are which are set up as one complete saga; not disconnected adventures stories.

lol, it didn't back fire; I am just even more irritated by the fact you are wasting other peoples money and never going to produce any real results with it. Go do something more useful with your life; people in film school that spend hours on a movie chat discussion board instead of practicing and honing their skills never are successful anyway. You are wasting your time.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Horribly paced scenes? Which ones in particular. I thought the action sequences were well shot in this film. Nice wides and no shakey cam or quick cuts."

I agree that the camera angles and action sequences were well shot; but there were many quick cuts. Not as bad as in other films but they were there. And the frame rate was way too high for most of the action scenes. (Side Note: As the quality of cameras and screens increase there is a need for decreased frame rate. Higher frame rates on high quality video recordings creates a motion issue in which as the camera moves you can almost sense or see the motion of the camera. For the OT 35 fps was perfectly fine because of the quality of the cameras of the time. For TFA it should have been no more than 24 fps; but JJ wanted to sell the gimmick he returned to the traditional 35 fps that the originals had)

But that is more about the camera work and not the pacing. Perhaps I should qualify it and say the pacing of the individual scenes is not a problem but the way the scenes were mashed together in rapid succession is what was bad about the pacing.

For example the destruction of the new republic, attack on Maz's bar and Rey getting captured in the forest scene. This I can't even describe as 3 separate scenes (which they should be) but because they are so mashed into one they form into one incoherent scene. Think about just logistics of it. Kylo was in the star destroyer watching the destruction of the new republic but then about 3 minutes later of in scene time of the attack of maz's bar he is in the forest with Rey. The lack of time separation causes a jarring pacing issue in which it seems like he magically transported to her location. Maybe a good amount of time went by for him to get there but because of the pacing it doesn't feel that way.

There are many examples like this within this film but I will start with this one. But basically in this film the pacing is terrible ever since the millennium falcon shows up on screen; until then the pacing was fine; after Rey, Finn and BB-8 escape it is a mess.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

I am replying up here because that other thread became too long. I know you are not discussing Justice League I brought it up as a comparison to TFA. You have never seen it but then say well objectively TFA is worse. You can not say that if you have not seen it. I am done playing nice. In order to have an opinion on a film you need to have seen it. Understand smart one?

No retort about the Superman Returns and Superman the movie callback? Yeah I though not you disingenuous deceptive tactics are lame.

Oh I am done with your claims about being fair when you want to have an opinion on films without even seeing them. I am the disingenuous one? Right...

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

WRONG you do not have to have seen a movie to know it is bad; and you can have an opinion of something without having seen or read it. The amount of details you have on the subject might be less but you can absolutely have an opinion based on effect and reaction. You can also know everything about a film without having seen by reading about it or listening to discussions on it and also just generally knowing movie making merits. I can't say for sure which is the overall worse film; but I can say TFA was such a bad film that it objectively did more damage to the franchise, story, lore and characters than Justice League did to its franchise. Understand, dumb one?

I don't even know what call backs you are referring to. It has been awhile since I watched Superman returns but I didn't even pick up on the callbacks; which means that they were well done enough that you don't even notice them unless are looking. TFA forces you to acknowledge the call back by the amount of emphasis it forces in.

Again, effect and messaging (or ability to have subltle messaging in side of your story) are all aspects of the quality of the writing. I don't have to have seen something to know it is there. I can observe the effects. Do you have to have seen gravity to know it is there? How about heat? can't see heat but you can see the things that cause heat. Yes you are the disingenuous because you are moving goal, condescending, insulting (passive aggressively), being arrogant, obfuscating, relying on sophistry and then demonstrate ignorance in your understanding of the subject you tried to claim authority on (by claiming to be in film school, that was an attempt at appeal to authority). If I can go back and highlight you content any time you demonstrated ignorance, arrogance, condescension, or passive aggressive insults it would make up nearly half of your posts content.

Get over yourself and your inflated sense of film judgment superiority.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

As a side note; this conversation has lost all value; and neither one of us is going to budge. depending on how obsessive your are; or if you are a sock account; which I think might be likely given how few posts you have besides to me you will likely reply to my latest round of posts. If you do; I will respond one last time with harsher dismissing of you as a person and your worthless arrogant, ignorant opinion and then add you to my ignore list.

I have no interest in discussing things with people that don't argue in good faith and never intended on a good debate.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 4 years ago

Your opinion will have no weight if you judge something before even seeing it. Lol and you can judge a book before reading it? Yeah say no more you are ignorant and delusional! Also the sky is the limit for me, you have peaked already. Side note I would not have a wife that liked trash movies like the breakup. Let me save you the trouble do not bother responding you are blocked! I dismissed you by saying good day but since you are not bright enough to understand that blocking you will fix that problem.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

you are lying and being disingenuous; I don't wish to talk to you anymore

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

I doubt they'll remake it. It costs $200 million smackeroos just to make one of these types of films, plus marketing. Yeah, they'll see it back, but they're into the "DVD, streaming rentals, and merchandising" phase of profiteering, which is what they love the most. So...I think this is what it is.

I wonder if they'll just reboot it altogether at some point, actually...

I'm with you, ultimately, though: love the first three Star Warses, and all subsequent sequels, prequels, and spinoffs and take a flying leap.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 5 years ago

I'm thinking 15 or 20 years down the line. They don't really have anywhere to go from here. Sequels to the sequels? Not likely. Remake of the OT? No way.

They're pretty much limited to spin-offs like Rogue One or Solo at this point. I guess KOTOR is on the table.

I don't know, but the sequels seem to undo everything about the OT and could have been taken in a different (and much better) direction.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

If they do more movies, eventually, they'll make more sequels. An "official" new episode of the Star Wars saga will be the best shot at some point. They might go further back and make prequels of the prequels, maybe dive into Mace Windu's rise to power, or how Palpatine got to be a senator or something like that. I know the formation of the Republic and the founding of the Jedi Order has probably been covered in some novel or video game or something, but they'll bulldoze it all and make more movies. I might actually be interested in an movie about early Force users. The people who discover it and grow it, and then all these sects and religions form: Jedi, Sith, the Whills (or whatever that blind dude in Rogue One was), etc., all locked in Star Holy Wars.

But, I think the main focus will become TV and streaming stuff. The Mandalorian's doing great. They'll capitalize on that kind of thing, I think.

The sequels, intentionally or not, tried to undo the OT's story, but failed. Why? I ignore it. In my head, Luke, Han, and Leia saved the galaxy from the Empire and raised up a New Republic that stood for a thousand generations again. They can write crappy new storylines all they want, but they can't tarnish the legacy or magic of the original. It stands forever.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 5 years ago

In my head, Luke, Han, and Leia saved the galaxy from the Empire and raised up a New Republic that stood for a thousand generations again. They can write crappy new storylines all they want, but they can't tarnish the legacy or magic of the original. It stands forever.

This. All of this.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

This for me too; I choose not to recognize anything Disney does with Star WArs as canon. They had no story to tell and instead milked nostalgia with a soulless cash grab sequel that slapped the face of the OT repetitively throughout its run. IMO the Sequel trilogy does not have a single redeeming quality.

reply

[–] PleaseRewind (36) 5 years ago

They could always go the "Superman Returns" route; I believe it was a sequel to Superman II, and it ignored Superman 3 and 4.

Not impossible, just doesn't happen often. The biggest problem I think would be the audience. I doubt many people, at that point in 2006, remembered or had seen Superman 3 or 4, so they were easy to ignore. A lot of people have seen the sequel trilogy.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2075) 5 years ago

They could always go the "Superman Returns" route; I believe it was a sequel to Superman II, and it ignored Superman 3 and 4.

Terminator Dark Fate ignored everything after T2. But like Disney did with Star-Wars, it undid everything that came before it. It deserved to die at the box office.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (922) 5 years ago

That is part of what made Superman Returns a bad film. A sequel when it should have been a reboot.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4373) 5 years ago

They should never had used the original cast to begin with. Because to many cry baby morons expected them to be the leads. They only bogged down the films. Keep dreaming because Hamil says he has totally lost interest after Fisher died and Ford definitely is done with it.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 5 years ago

Keep dreaming because Hamil says he has totally lost interest after Fisher died and Ford definitely is done with it.

Yes, this was part of my point.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4373) 5 years ago

Look on the bright side. Scifi has been so over done now. There is not much of interest anymore. Especially when it comes to special effects. They have pretty much done everything. They need to focus character more not how much shit they can throw up on screen.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 5 years ago

I totally agree. I was reading a discussion on the Harry Potter books recently. One of the complaints was about how it wasn't a very good read - that it was childish. Well, yeah it was written for... wait for it... CHILDREN!

But it's the story that's so compelling for people, not the technical writing prowess of the author. The story and characters are what make it what it is.

Your point tracks perfectly with this, that the visuals and effects should take second place to the story and character.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4373) 5 years ago

Yup...love the Potter movies. Just the right balance of character, action and effects.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4472) 4 years ago

Breaks your heart it had a realistic take makes the Galaxy Look I loved the Big 3 And A New Hope is still my favorite Star Wars Movie but at Star Wars Celebration 2015 they said it would be a passing of the Torch you missed the Memo Luke and Leia still interactions and where in the final scene how is that ciriminal also the reason why i keep coming back to the franchise is because of the characters also Rey,Finn And Poe Dameron are Legacy Characters Now Joining Anakin,Obi-Wan and Padme and The Big Three Luke,Han And Leia sorry i enjoyed the Sequels there themes align with previous 6 films no they shouldnt be remade try to find some aspects you like about the Sequels just Try there better than the Prequels

reply

[–] aavfreak (3313) 4 years ago

I'm not sure I'm quite getting what you're trying to say here. I think what you're trying to say is:

It was upsetting your mind that making a Galaxy Look was realistic. I love the Big 3 and New Hope is still my favorite Star Wars movie, but in Star Wars Celebration 2015 it's the flames that have lost the interaction of Memorook and Leia and where in the last scene, right? OR? This criminal is also the reason why I returned to the franchise for the character. Ray, Finn and Pauder Mellon are legacy characters who have joined Anakin, Obiwan, Padme, Big Threel, Han and Leia. It is consistent with the previous six films only in sequence that you don't need to update to try and find some aspects that you like.

reply

[–] janelsenor (2044) 4 years ago

Will never happen unless the entire franchise is rebooted.

reply