MovieChat Forums > movieseeker101 > Replies
movieseeker101's Replies
I know I wont change your mind. People like you I do not get, if you're going to dig your heels in why bother even discussing the film? The minute someone says you wont ever change my mind shows they have no interest in actual discussion. So that proves to me you're simply here to troll.
People agreeing with you does not make your point anymore valid. Why should I care that people agree with you? I can flip that right back around, there are plenty of people who agree with me in thinking The Force Awakens and the Last Jedi are good films. Does that mean anything to you because others agree with me?
Then why are you pawning off your opinion as if it is a fact? Why do people owe you an explanation on why they think the film is good? Pretty obvious your mind is made up on how you feel about it which is totally fine.
Also I am well aware plenty of vocal people are pissed off about Rey, should this shape my opinion of what I think of the film?
Despite it being a fictional character to parody Mary Sue type characters, it still does not make it a fact that it is bad. Provide a fact that being a Mary Sue is bad not an opinion a fact. You can't because it is an opinion nothing more.
Again opinion provide a fact that being a Mary Sue is bad. If you can't you have nothing more than your opinion. The term Mary Sue is annoying because people act like when you point that out it is an undeniable flaw. Nope it is simply a term people have clung to based off a parody character. There are no concrete facts that being a Mary Sue is bad.
You haven't proven it to be a fact that being a Mary Sue is a bad thing. I get it you do not like it all you have listed is an opinion. Why should we take it as undeniable truth? I find Daisey Ridley to be a great young talent. I want a fact on why being a Mary Sue is a bad thing. You have failed to provide anything other than your opinion.
Question is it a fact that being a Mary Sue is a bad thing? Fitting a description does not make something factually bad. Mary Sue is simply a label someone came up with to describe a fictional character. Not a fact that this is a negative. If you can not prove that it is a fact you have nothing other than an opinion to go off of.
Number two her origin is hinted at in the Force Awakens. She had to learn how to survive being on a desert planet. Having to fight for survival makes you well equipped in a lot of areas. Had she not picked up those skills she would not have survived. Unlike Luke she had no one taking care of her. Therefore she had to struggle to survive where as Luke did not. Luke while poor was raised by a loving aunt and uncle.
It seems you are claiming a character to be a Mary Sue because of the origin of the character not being explained. Must every character's skill be shown with intimate detail in order for us to accept them being good at that skill? If so then man that would make a lot of stuff fit the Mary Sue definition. Even if it does fit the definition nothing is factually proving that is a negative.
Sorry I will have to agree to disagree. I am not a fan of either of those films. Whatever though you are entitled to think whatever you want. I think the new Star Wars films are masterpieces myself.
Disagree. I found the Dark Knight Rises to be a slow boring bland film. Interstellar I found to be poorly paced with a lame message. SW I find to be the best it has been since the original trilogy. I still like the originals more but I am enjoying these far more than those awful prequels.
I guess I should say I am a fan of Nolan but not like you. I liked Memento, Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Inception. Not a fan of the Dark Knight Rises or Interstellar.
I do not want him taking on Star Wars I think it is headed in the right direction.
I personally am not a fan of his to be honest. I do not deny his accomplishments but I like other film makers more.
Do not forget Last Jedi. Also a film with solid critical numbers across the board. Again did I ever say his filmography can topple Nolan's? Nope I simply said if you can claim Nolan has 8 masterpieces because of box office and critical numbers we can make that case for other film makers work as well. Why does everyone need to be compared to Nolan anyway?
There have been other great film makers who have more accomplishments than him and I do not see you referencing them. Why is that?
Not to the degree that he is now. Batman begins catapulted him into the Blockbuster genre. Before that he only had smaller films underneath his belt. The only films that beat Looper critically are The Dark Knight and Dunkirk.
With Memento it is more or less a tie. On MC Looper has the edge on RT Memento has the edge. Box office goes to Looper as to be expected and Memento got the award nominations. While this is very close I would give the slight edge to Memento. Honestly this can go either way though.
Also what do you mean Nolan has films that are 3rd-9th place? You talking imdb? Because if you are that point is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because in your original point you boasted critical acclaim and box office as a means to prove Nolan's films were good.
Imdb has no critics on it. I think what has happened is you are resorting to that because you got called on the carpet.
Um Johnson has only done one big budget film. Nobody knew who Nolan was when he did Batman Begins. It was after that is when he became a big name.
Again we are not talking audience we are talking critical acclaim. The point you keep going away from. On RT the critical reception for last Jedi is rather solid. Other than MC numbers Looper has nothing to brag about? Um you forgot RT. On there it has amazing reception as well. Better critically than The Dark Knight Rises.
No the numbers suggest the prequels are not even good. Not just faults but bad numbers.
Some film makers prefer to work small more consistently and less on big budget films. Richard Linklater is an example of that.
Anyhow why is it you are allowed to act as if it is an indisputable fact Nolan's films are masterpieces because of great numbers and then turn around and tell the rest of us we can't do the same for another film maker? Looper and Last Jedi have great numbers. On par or better than a lot of Nolan's work. So Johnson has two masterpieces and the numbers support that.
Since you're such a numbers guy you realize the Disney Star Wars films destroy any of the prequels in numbers right? Since you made the claim that it implies Nolan is factually better than Johnson because of numbers the same logic applies here. The Disney films are factually better than the prequels because of numbers.
Again let me say this again. Nolan is the more successful film maker! Got that? The thing is though how many big budget films has Rian Johnson done?
Did you just mention the prequels in a positive light? You know the numbers on those is pretty bad right?
I never did deny Nolan has had more success. I made the point that Nolan has a much longer filmography than Johnson does. As of now Nolan is more successful though yes I never disputed that. However you need to acknowledge that Coppola has more career accomplishments than Nolan does. Coppola has 5 Oscars Nolan 3 nominations.
Again on all fronts? When we compare the filmography of each Johnson has a much shorter one. Looper and Last Jedi are on par or better than a lot of Nolan's work. The only stuff above those critically is The Dark Knight, Memento, and Dunkirk. If we are going off of career accomplishments Francis Ford Coppola beats Nolan on all fronts.
So if Nolan has made 8 masterpieces going by the numbers than that would mean Johnson has made 2 masterpieces correct? I mean since Looper beats The Dark Knight Rises critically that means it is also a masterpiece correct? Remember critics is the original argument you made for Nolan. So imdb is irrelevant as it has no critics on it.
He has many more Oscars than he does as well. It is a bit silly to compare Johnson and Nolan. A more accurate and fair comparison would be probably Tarantino vs Nolan. Both different but both have about the same amount of films roughly.
You hating them is one thing but to suggest the franchise needs saving is silly. You may not like it but it is doing fine. Okay that is your opinion. Why were you presenting it like it was an indisputable fact Nolan's other 8 films were masterpieces? You throw numbers out there and then I present you to Johnson who also has good numbers you say well only one film is good.
Um the numbers say Last Jedi is solid just like Looper. Brick has good reception as well. Basically what I am getting is that your opinion is suppose to be treated like it is a fact and the rest of us have to bow down to it.
Do not pick and choose. If you can claim Nolan's films to be great because of numbers we can do the same with Johnson's.
From where I sit it seems to be doing fine. The Force Awakens made over 2 billion dollars and Rogue One made over a billion bucks. Yeah I think it is just fine.
I will also bring you back to the original topic. Star Wars films are liked by critics and financial hits. Why do they need saving?