Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Future and potential Star Wars films - news and speculation

Options
17810121341

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    buried wrote: »
    It's like if they had made Toy Story, then they'd make Toy Story 2 and kill off all the characters in that sequel then expect everyone to go see Toy Story 3. Who signed off on this plan? Were they on bad synthetic drugs?

    That's not really an apt comparison at all.

    This trilogy isn't about the characters they're killing off.

    It's about Rey, Poe, Finn and Kylo Ren.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    Gbear wrote: »
    That's not really an apt comparison at all.

    This trilogy isn't about the characters they're killing off.

    It's about Rey, Poe, Finn and Kylo Ren.

    Nah G don't agree. They built up Snoke as if it was some demigod in Episode 7, and that was at least one of the few interesting aspects of that film. Then he gets sliced up in five minutes in his own gaff in Episode 8, no story, no clue what it was or where it came from, how it amassed such a huge outfit such as the 'First Order'. Weak stuff, real weak, considering that was the head villain. These stories were never just about the goody two shoe heroes. I don't even consider Kylo a villain at all, he appears to be just a confused brat. At least Snoke seemed genuinely dark, then they cut it out.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Gbear wrote: »
    That's not really an apt comparison at all.

    This trilogy isn't about the characters they're killing off.

    It's about Rey, Poe, Finn and Kylo Ren.
    It's about those characters now, because they killed the others off. The whole first film was leading up to them finding Luke, to get him back in the fight. Then in the second film, they found him, and he died....


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    buried wrote: »
    Nah G don't agree. They built up Snoke as if it was some demigod in Episode 7, and that was at least one of the few interesting aspects of that film. Then he gets sliced up in five minutes in his own gaff in Episode 8, no story, no clue what it was or where it came from, how it amassed such a huge outfit such as the 'First Order'. Weak stuff, real weak, considering that was the head villain.

    The time to establish that was in the first film.

    The Emperor was a similar demi god, and he got picked up and thrown down a hole.
    buried wrote: »
    These stories were never just about the goody two shoe heroes. I don't even consider Kylo a villain at all, he appears to be just a confused brat. At least Snoke seemed genuinely dark, then they cut it out.

    Knowing full well how much it hurts himself, he murdered his father.
    He's not a one dimensional moustache twirler. Through some combination of ambition and becoming addicted to the dark side of the force, he does things he knows are horrifying because they give him more power. It's an interesting kind of evil. It's self aware.

    Snoke was a one-dimensional character. Nothing was lost.

    The original Emperor was little more than background for Darth Vader so that he had a more interesting character arc. Snoke had the same utility function.

    He was compelling in the same sort of way Palpatine was, because like Ian McDiarmid, Andy Serkis enjoyably chewed the scenery, but it wasn't down to the writing.
    Johnmb wrote: »
    It's about those characters now, because they killed the others off. The whole first film was leading up to them finding Luke, to get him back in the fight. Then in the second film, they found him, and he died....

    They gave each of the original trio a film to put their mark on.

    IX was to be Carrie Fisher's, until her untimely death. Whether or not he died, he wasn't going to be the focus of the trilogy, or episode IX.

    And Hamill is going to be in episode IX anyway, presumably doing what Guiness did for the OT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    Gbear wrote: »
    The time to establish that was in the first film.

    The Emperor was a similar demi god, and he got picked up and thrown down a hole.

    But that happened at the end of the third act in a three act storyline, this is done to S midway through the second. You do stupid things like that in a basic story, it's not some groundbreaking brilliance, it's just plain weak writing

    Snoke was a one-dimensional character. Nothing was lost.

    They could do with loosing a good few more of these, That Rose wan, Gleeson's demented maths teacher, whatever Del Toro's character was. The whole thing is riddled with way worse one dimensional characters than the head villain

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    buried wrote: »
    But that happened at the end of the third act in a three act storyline, this is done to S midway through the second. You do stupid things like that in a basic story, it's not some groundbreaking brilliance, it's just plain weak writing

    That's absurd. There isn't just one correct plot you're allowed to have.
    buried wrote: »
    They could do with loosing a good few more of these, That Rose wan, Gleeson's demented maths teacher, whatever Del Toro's character was. The whole thing is riddled with way worse one dimensional characters than the head villain

    There's no problem having them. They can serve a function.

    There's nothing wrong with Rose. Her plot with Finn was pointless and stupid, but the character's grand. Del Toro's cynicism works fine to develop Finn's character. He claims to not give a ****, until he sees what true amorality looks like.
    Some have a problem with the way Gleeson chews the scenery. I don't particularly. Like Snoke I think he works as a foil for Kylo Ren. He will almost certainly die in the next film.

    The four leads aren't one dimensional. Whatever about the plot or the world building, I am at least happy where the main villain is going into IX. I just hope he's not redeemed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,241 ✭✭✭✭Victor




  • Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    Gbear wrote: »
    That's absurd. There isn't just one correct plot you're allowed to have.

    No it's not, and it's not about the plot, there are basic elements to good story telling, good character creation, build and resolution. All good stories have them. To introduce a major villain character in a first act then have it killed in the middle of the second with no clue to what it's aims, history or basic reason for existing was is just so weak it's laughable. If you can't see that then I don't know what else to say to you


    Gbear wrote: »
    There's no problem having them. They can serve a function.

    They are a huge problem for me. The function they serve is making me cringe and come out of the escapism of what I'm trying to watch everytime they appear. They are terrible terrible characters.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    One thing the new movies have done really well is making Kylo essentially the main protagonist. The rest are merely supporting characters who contribute to his journey to the dark side.

    Maybe you could liken it to Michael Corleone's journey from war hero to mobster boss and its cost to the people around him.

    Makes for an interesting and unpredictable finale.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    Speaking of mobster bosses, The Hutt family could have been utilised to great effect in these new 7-9 episodes but they are nowhere to be seen. Here are already recognisable villains with a good backstory and reason for extreme villainy in these new films (Jabba's family out for revenge after his killing). Good basic story with a good reason to introduce more tangible characters and drama, but no, we're left with weak vague cringe. How Disney/anybody did not see this may have been a good idea, even for one small act even, is also very strange.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    I don’t disagree with some of the criticisms being laid out here. But some people take way to rigid a view on how they feel these movies should go.

    Did palpatine have anymore information about him or screentime in the oroginal trilogy’s then snoke?

    I know snoke corrupted Ren, snoke is effectively head of the first order and trying to kill the goodies. What else did I know about Palps in the OT ?

    Maybe the third will tie it all together, why are people not willing to wait? Imagine TESB was released today. People would be whinging that they shouldn’t have to see the next movie to see what happens to solo!!. It’s interesting to see how online forums like this have given a voice to people that’s allowed mobs to back each other up...

    And times have changed and people have changed since the OT. To completely discount this is to basically show little insight to how we all change as time elapses. I don’t feel the same about the newer Star Wars (except maybe rogue one) as I did the OT. But I’m a completely different person to the one I was 30+ years ago when I first saw them. This is relevant. This affects expectations....

    Take solo for example. I thought it was OK as a Star Wars movie. A fair bit wrong with it. But as a sci fi heist movie is was really good. Watched it with the kids last night again and it’s actually really enjoyable as a stand-alone movie when it’s not weighed down with the Star Wars tag. My children don’t have that prejudice , accepted it as part of the universe and love it. One of my sons even made one of the ships out of his Lego.

    We don’t need 2 SW movies a year. It was also released way too close to IW and Deadpool. DP fans are comic book fans who will go to SW.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    buried wrote: »
    No it's not, and it's not about the plot, there are basic elements to good story telling, good character creation, build and resolution. All good stories have them. To introduce a major villain character in a first act then have it killed in the middle of the second with no clue to what it's aims, history or basic reason for existing was is just so weak it's laughable. If you can't see that then I don't know what else to say to you

    So it's fine killing them if you've no idea what their aims or history are so long as it's in the third act?

    Your mistake is thinking that he's a major villain. The importance of a villain is more about their character than it is about their power, and Snoke might have had a lot of power, but he never had a lot of character.

    A clever thing that George Martin did with A Song of Ice and Fire was that he allowed character deaths to shock you by obfusticating who actually was a main character. One notable one happens about a third of the way through book four, IIRC, and it made it clear that some characters' plot armour was never really there at all. That's not when you're "supposed" to have major plot events like that, and you're not "supposed" to kill characters who are good guys and POV characters besides. It remains one of the most thrilling experiences I have had reading a book or consuming any kind of media.

    There's no one right way to write a story and there is absolutely no reason that Snoke's death causes any problems from a story writing perspective. Snoke's ultimate purpose will be the development of the actual villain, Kylo Ren, who I would argue is a deeper and more interesting character than any they've had in Star Wars.

    There's nothing wrong with the way they did it in the OT, but all the same it's nice to see them going into a somewhat different direction.

    If Snoke had been developed in episode 7 and then binned, I can see how people would have a problem, although I again, that might have worked as a stronger misdirect. Execution is key.

    Your problem is that what you're mischaracterising as poor storytelling is actually them not telling the story you want them to tell. It's not an uncommon occurennce for people to feel that way in series with existing lore, like adaptations from books, or in sequels. People develop their own head canon and what's released doens't match it they're disapointed.

    Another factor with TLJ has been looking for invented reasons that sound like objetive arguments for why the film is bad, when saying "I don't like this" is perfectly fine.
    buried wrote: »
    They are a huge problem for me. The function they serve is making me cringe and come out of the escapism of what I'm trying to watch everytime they appear. They are terrible terrible characters.

    I pointed out that Snoke was a shallow character and your reply was "Yeah!? Well I here's some characters that I don't like."

    Well grand, but it's not really related to my point. The point was how disposable they are. DJ probably won't appear again, so that's him gone, and Hux will probably be killed off.

    Rose isn't particularly shallow. I just don't think the scenes she's in are up to much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    So it's fine killing them if you've no idea what their aims or history are so long as it's in the third act?

    Your mistake is thinking that he's a major villain. The importance of a villain is more about their character than it is about their power, and Snoke might have had a lot of power, but he never had a lot of character.

    Of course he's a major villain! Right from the get go we are shown he is the one ordering the entire villain outfit - The First Order, he is the one ordering the likes of Gleeson and Kylo about, he is in charge, he is in control, he is the main villain. But we are never told how or why this came about, not even a hint of it. This Snoke guy is old right? Well, he looks older than Luke and Leah, so he must have existed at a timeline similar to the timeline of those other characters. So where did it come from? Was he always in charge? It would have been good to find these things out before he was just bumped off midway through a second act. You try to watch Episode 7 again now and watch those scenes with Snoke up on all high and mighty, and all you are thinking is, "ahh sure this whoever he is, is going to get got in 30 minutes anyway so this is pointless"
    A clever thing that George Martin did with A Song of Ice and Fire was that he allowed character deaths to shock you by obfusticating who actually was a main character. One notable one happens about a third of the way through book four, IIRC, and it made it clear that some characters' plot armour was never really there at all. That's not when you're "supposed" to have major plot events like that, and you're not "supposed" to kill characters who are good guys and POV characters besides. It remains one of the most thrilling experiences I have had reading a book or consuming any kind of media.

    But those are books and long running TV serials. Motion pictures are a different beast altogether and run to a totally different set story timeline in order for them to work.

    I pointed out that Snoke was a shallow character and your reply was "Yeah!? Well I here's some characters that I don't like."

    Well now you can see above there at the start of this post why I found him interesting!

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Gbear wrote: »
    Your problem is that what you're mischaracterising as poor storytelling is actually them not telling the story you want them to tell. It's not an uncommon occurennce for people to feel that way in series with existing lore, like adaptations from books, or in sequels. People develop their own head canon and what's released doens't match it they're disapointed.

    Another factor with TLJ has been looking for invented reasons that sound like objetive arguments for why the film is bad, when saying "I don't like this" is perfectly fine.

    That is basically the gist of the vast majority criticism levelled at the new Star Wars films.
    What is surprising is the vehemence and anger and the absolute demented need to convince everyone that those are bad movies.
    Just look at the film review section of IMDB where the one star trolls live (This Is The Worst Movie Ever!). Any "review" like that can safely be disregarded and skipped since it's written by a moron.
    If someone says "I don't like this movie, because...", then I'm interested.
    If someone says " This Movie Is Sh*te!", then I know I don't have to read any further.
    And to say "this movie is bad because they didn't magically look into my brain and wrote the story I wanted them to write" is just throwing a childish tantrum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    That is basically the gist of the vast majority criticism levelled at the new Star Wars films.
    What is surprising is the vehemence and anger and the absolute demented need to convince everyone that those are bad movies.
    Just look at the film review section of IMDB where the one star trolls live (This Is The Worst Movie Ever!). Any "review" like that can safely be disregarded and skipped since it's written by a moron.
    If someone says "I don't like this movie, because...", then I'm interested.
    If someone says " This Movie Is Sh*te!", then I know I don't have to read any further.
    And to say "this movie is bad because they didn't magically look into my brain and wrote the story I wanted them to write" is just throwing a childish tantrum.

    lol That's not what I'm saying Doc. I'm saying the basic writing is bad, the character development is bad, and it is really bad. The story I don't mind so much, I loved the Mystery of Snoke, the fact that Luke was so cheesed off on that Island was the most interesting part of that second act, other things too, there was a lot of great things to work with. But bumping off major characters in a second act and the likes of 'yo mama' jokes? I expected better from the likes of Disney for these new productions in terms of new character development and drama, its shocking to me how bad it is considering that great studios track record in those departments, that's all I'm saying!

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,905 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Gbear wrote: »
    The time to establish that was in the first film.

    The Emperor was a similar demi god, and he got picked up and thrown down a hole.

    No The Emperor was just the Emperor. The head of the Empire that's been around for a long time, master of all in it, embroiled in a civil war. You don't really need to explain him. Like you don't need to explain the Emperor in a film about Rome. Or, like you don't need to explain who King John is in a film about Robin Hood. We don't even see him in the first film, because we don't need to. He's briefly presented in the second and fully revealed in the third as the guy who holds all the cards. Nothing else is needed though, because he's still a secondary character that needs nothing else, and because he's really not that important in the OT. He's the equivalent of Caesar showing up in a Roman epic. We know all we need to know.

    Snoke, on the other hand, is teased as an important character, not only to the plot, but to other characters too. We're shown he's the head of this new organisation, we told he's very powerful, we told he's responsible for various character's motivations, from Leia to Kylo. He's largely responsible for one of the main character's reason for existing - that ALONE needs explaining.

    He absolutely needed more fleshing out.

    Johnson, though, just didn't know what to write for him (like he didn't know what to write for Finn and Poe) and "cut" him from the show, as it were.
    Gbear wrote: »
    Knowing full well how much it hurts himself, he murdered his father.
    He's not a one dimensional moustache twirler. Through some combination of ambition and becoming addicted to the dark side of the force, he does things he knows are horrifying because they give him more power. It's an interesting kind of evil. It's self aware.

    Snoke was a one-dimensional character. Nothing was lost.

    A lot is lost actually. Not only for people's understanding of Snoke, but also their understanding of Kylo Ren too. Without even attempting some sort of explanation of who or what Snoke is, they also rob any explanation of why Kylo is the way he is. Without this, he's just a murderous psychopath. So he has, in fact, been reduced by Johnson to a "one dimensional moustache twirler".
    Gbear wrote: »
    The original Emperor was little more than background for Darth Vader so that he had a more interesting character arc. .

    And that's all that was needed there, because their impact on the story was satisfying enough. We don't actually need any more info on the Emperor, because he's a background character and are understanding of him suffices. He's no more than an end of game boss fight. A bigger baddie than Vader.

    Snoke's apparent impact of the sequel's character's and story, what little of it there is, is of a much greater weight though.

    So, what we have at the end of two movies is that we still know absolutely NOTHING about the characters, because Johnson wasn't interested, or wasn't able (he's a bad writer by his own admission), to expand on the characters that were presented in 'The Force Awakens'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,905 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Gbear wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with Rose.


    Sorry, Rose is terrible character.

    The nonsense from idiots toward Kelly Marie Tran aside, the character of Rose was literally written to give Finn somebody to talk to in his equally terribly written side plot. She has awful, cringe worthy, lines throughout the film. She exists, simply to prop up another empty character (Finn) and has one of the most dreadful coda's I've ever seen in a movie.

    Rose is one of the absolute worst characters I've yet seen in Star Wars and that's saying something. She like something that was written by a 9 year old girl.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,094 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Mod note: Folks can we please take The Last Jedi discussion to the dedicated thread? There’s no need for this thread to get dominated by the same arguments we’ve been hearing for the last nine months or so. Thanks!


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,905 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Wedwood wrote: »
    Maybe you could liken it to Michael Corleone's journey from war hero to mobster boss and its cost to the people around him.


    No. You can't.

    We're shown, clearly, Michael's fall into the family business, even after he tried to get away from it by joining the army. He gradually and recluctantly gets pulled into the mafia, through associations and actions. We see his "downfall".

    With Ren, we're just told that Snoke is responsible for his "turning". We're told Snoke was important for why Kylo is the way he is. But, nothing is shown or even explained. There's not even any exposition to shed light on why things are the way they are. So, as an audience, we're still none the wiser.

    And that's terrible storytelling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Tony EH wrote: »
    No. You can't.

    We're shown, clearly, Michael's fall into the family business, even after he tried to get away from it by joining the army. He gradually and recluctantly gets pulled into the mafia, through associations and actions. We see his "downfall".

    With Ren, we're just told that Snoke is responsible for his "turning". We're told Snoke was important for why Kylo is the way he is. But, nothing is shown or even explained. There's not even any exposition to shed light on why things are the way they are. So, as an audience, we're still none the wiser.

    And that's terrible storytelling.

    As opposed to Vader who all we know in the OT , he was seduced by the dark side by Palps...

    And the weird thing about people complaining about Disney making things up as they do along isn’t that exactly what Lucas did? One of the biggest twist in the franchise (luke being his son) wasn’t the original plan...

    I don’t disagree with some of your sentiments Tony but I think you apply a different set of criteria to the newer movies then you do the OT. You might speak truths about the new movies character depth and story being made up as they go along but these same criticism could be labeled at originals before the prequels...

    The original movies were original and thus had no real benchmark. It’s gas that the discussion used to be about how TROTJ used to be the discussion on the weakest SW movie and people now speak of OT versus newer stuff. The new movies are cash ins, there’s no denying that. You need only watch the family guy or robot chicken lovingly Mock Star Wars to see there’s plenty of holes and issues with the originals we just decide to ignore or not care about.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Sorry, Rose is terrible character.

    The nonsense from idiots toward Kelly Marie Tran aside, the character of Rose was literally written to give Finn somebody to talk to in his equally terribly written side plot. She has awful, cringe worthy, lines throughout the film. She exists, simply to prop up another empty character (Finn) and has one of the most dreadful coda's I've ever seen in a movie.

    Rose is one of the absolute worst characters I've yet seen in Star Wars and that's saying something. She like something that was written by a 9 year old girl.

    As opposed to the Ewoks that were integral to taking down the empire in TROTJ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,905 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Drumpot wrote: »
    As opposed to Vader who all we know in the OT , he was seduced by the dark side by Palps...

    We didn't know that and we didn't need to know. In the original films, Vader is just presented as, basically, the second in command of an Empire. Nothing is said of his downfall or seduction. The only thing mentioned about that comes from Kenobi who backstorie's Luke's dad as a "good friend" who "fell to the dark side". Vader is just a henchman, who "killed" Luke's dad. And that's all we need to know of him. Any more teasing would have required more information, so it's deliberately left out and for good measure.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    And the weird thing about people complaining about Disney making things up as they do along isn’t that exactly what Lucas did? One of the biggest twist in the franchise (luke being his son) wasn’t the original plan...

    That doesn't excuse anything.

    Again, I ask, WHY do the defenders of these films constantly have to being the flaws of the older films to justify them?

    Mentioning the missteps of George Lucas' films will never make the sequels any better.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    I don’t disagree with some of your sentiments Tony but I think you apply a different set of criteria to the newer movies then you do the OT. You might speak truths about the new movies character depth and story being made up as they go along but these same criticism could be labeled at originals before the prequels...

    The only criteria I'm assigning to these films are the same set I apply to any picture. Am I being entertained by a good story with good characters?

    The answer here is no. Because the story is flimsy dreck, that makes no sense and the characters are thinly drawn, shallow husks, who themselves make no sense.

    And even if the characters of the original films weren't amazing, at least they had a bit of character and, more importantly, they actually grew from film to film, like the audience's interest in them. With each film, we understood a little bit more about them and their situation and the universe that they inhabit. It was far from perfect, but at least it was there.

    With these new movies, there's nothing. This thing ends next year and the audience still knows next to nothing about who they're watching, or the background of the events that the action takes place in. It's really terrible stuff.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    The original movies were original and thus had no real benchmark. It’s gas that the discussion used to be about how TROTJ used to be the discussion on the weakest SW movie and people now speak of OT versus newer stuff. The new movies are cash ins, there’s no denying that. You need only watch the family guy or robot chicken lovingly Mock Star Wars to see there’s plenty of holes and issues with the originals we just decide to ignore or not care about.

    'Return of the Jedi' still is the weakest out of the original three. It always will be. But that stopped being the low point when the prequels came out. Now the discussion, naturally, has been focused on these milquetoast semi-remakes, because they are viewed as weak themselves, in many areas.

    If they were uniformly good, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

    Maybe with future Star Wars movies, to get back on topic, we might see a more careful approach to the storytelling and with Iger hitting the brakes, there might be time to allow writers (real writers, not part timers like Johnson or chancers like Abrams) to actually write intelligent and believable stories.

    I don't think there's any salvaging the sequel trilogy, due to the careless abandon that Johnson indulged in with 'The Last Jedi', though. That's probably a write off.

    I'm sure, if Disney could go back and start over, they would.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,905 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Drumpot wrote: »
    As opposed to the Ewoks that were integral to taking down the empire in TROTJ?


    Again, shitting on the older films to try and excuse the flaws of the new ones. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Again, shitting on the older films to try and excuse the flaws of the new ones. ;)

    You see Tony it’s not sh*tting on the older movies. It’s comparing negative aspects you say are why you don’t like in the newer movies and showing that similar things existed in the old. You chose to label it in a manner that suggests I’m defending the new movies by bringing down the old.

    You are just selectively choosing to give the old movies a pass and project anything negative on the new movies.

    I don’t know what your point is on the characters cause your response doesn’t really address the points made. We know no more of snoke in two movies then we did palpatine in the OT. We actually know more about Ren then we did Vader in the OT.

    Ford famously slagged off Lucas dialogue and it wasn’t Always top notch. Lucas did make things up as he went along. Why is this ok for Lucas and wrong with Disney?

    Think of the questions that existed after TESB. Wtf is the story with Luke? Why didn’t Obi Wan or even yoda just tell him? What’s going to happen to Han Solo? Why didn’t Darth Vader go after luke hard when he knew he survived the fall and was escaping in falcon?

    Based on judging the first two newer movies these are complaints people would have if the “these movies are leaving loads of things out” logic... it’s fair criticisms of people who aren’t even waiting to see what Abrams comes up
    With. The presumption is that Disney are pumping billions into a franchise they lazily make up as they go along. That doesn’t sound more plausible then maybe some people just aren’t getting the movies they want which is what I think is more accurate.

    Edit: I think the new movies lack the charm of the old which is why so many are happier to look beyond the OTs flaws.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,905 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Drumpot wrote: »
    You see Tony it’s not sh*tting on the older movies. It’s comparing negative aspects you say are why you don’t like in the newer movies and showing that similar things existed in the old.

    It's only a comparison used in an effort to elevate these new films though. The new pictures are rarely discussed on their own merits. You see this type of argumentation all over the place, when fans of the new films are trying to counter issues people have with Disney's Star Wars movies.

    There are certainly flaws in the older Star Wars films. Show me a film that doesn't have some flaws.

    However, this "but old Star Wars..." excuse gets real tired, real quick.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Tony EH wrote: »
    It's only a comparison used in an effort to elevate these new films though. The new pictures are rarely discussed on their own merits. You see this type of argumentation all over the place, when fans of the new films are trying to counter issues people have with Disney's Star Wars movies.

    There are certainly flaws in the older Star Wars films. Show me a film that doesn't have some flaws.

    However, this "but old Star Wars..." excuse gets real tired, real quick.

    It’s possible to adore the originals but see the objective flaws in throwing criticisms at newer movies that could be leveled at the originals. But that’s me trying to be fair and objective.

    Critically analyzing the originals is not a method to raise the newer movies or sh*t on the originals. It’s the only way you can give a balanced review as they are the benchmark. I’ve seen the same one sided reviews of aliens movies. People will selectively compare only the parts of the movies that suit their narrative and refuse to even engage in debate on areas that contradict their points....

    The ironic thing is that I actually agree with much of your sentiments. I think the originals were so much better then the new movies. They had more soul, better characters , were rougher in a good way, were obviously mode original and had a story I was more invested in then whatever it is in the newer ones. Having only one movie every few years allowed us to appreciate them better, Creates a more mythological feel and possibly a more satisfying pay off as a result. I genuinely don’t care for one character in the new movies. So I just try and enjoy the ride. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    I actually think rogue one is possibly one of the best SW movies. I also think they should not of gone back to the sky walker story. That said, seeing the old characters on screen again was emotional for me. I was gutted when Solo was killed, really gutted and I’m no spring chicken.

    What’s also funny is that I agree with a lot of your disappointment but I don’t share your hatred or rigid interpretation of what makes a movie entertaining. I can enjoy a movie through my children’s eyes. I can accept that maybe the SW franchise is not really made for me anymore. Either I enjoy what I get or I hate on the monies and expect a children’s company to make me the SW movie I really want.

    And it’s not about you not having the right to complain but seriously do you think maybe you should try and take what you can from them at this stage?


  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Defunkd


    Drumpot wrote: »
    As opposed to the Ewoks that were integral to taking down the empire in TROTJ?

    So it's totally implausible that a technologically superior force could be defeated by indigenous group in a single battle?

    I think Lucas was going for cutesy-wutesy rather than making comment on Vietnam or any serious issue but the teddy bears helped win only one battle. The ewoks didn't take down the empire.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Defunkd wrote: »
    So it's totally implausible that a technologically superior force could be defeated by indigenous group in a single battle?

    I think Lucas was going for cutesy-wutesy rather than making comment on Vietnam or any serious issue but the teddy bears helped win only one battle. The ewoks didn't take down the empire.

    I didn’t say they took down the empire. I said they were integral. They saved Hans group whose job was to bring down the shield. Without them there would be no victory.

    I have had to stop trying to see things from certain reviewers point of views cause I found myself watching older movies (OT and older aliens movies) and picking them apart in the same manner people do with newer movies. If you apply the same rigid criteria you can find a lot wrong with them. It can actually ruin your enjoyment of classics because there is a lot we all let go for sentimental reasons.

    So I can see why people can get so OTT negative about new movies and can be incapable of enjoying them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,905 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Drumpot wrote: »
    It’s possible to adore the originals but see the objective flaws

    Of course it is. Nobody's saying otherwise.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Critically analyzing the originals is not a method to raise the newer movies or sh*t on the originals.

    But what's the point? If someone is talking about the failures in 'The Last Jedi', what is the point in bringing up flaws in 'Return of the Jedi'? It won't make 'The Last Jedi' any better, will it? It's just a very poor line of reasoning, as "whataboutery" usually is.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    It’s the only way you can give a balanced review as they are the benchmark.

    No. It is absolutely not the only way to give a balanced review of a film...any film.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    The ironic thing is that I actually agree with much of your sentiments. I think the originals were so much better then the new movies. They had more soul, better characters , were rougher in a good way, were obviously mode original and had a story I was more invested in then whatever it is in the newer ones. Having only one movie every few years allowed us to appreciate them better, Creates a more mythological feel and possibly a more satisfying pay off as a result. I genuinely don’t care for one character in the new movies. So I just try and enjoy the ride. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    Fine, but an awful lot of people aren't enjoying this ride, because of the flaws that the ride has and bringing up films that were made over 35 years ago ain't going to ease the ride either.

    The awfulness of the Ewoks isn't going to make the wretchedness of Rose any less. The clumsiness of the Luke and Leia sibling angle won't make the sequel's flimsy character writing any better. The tiredness of Death Star 2.0 doesn't excuse Star Killler base...ad nauseam...

    The issues with Disney's sequels and their handling of the franchise aren't going to go away, because someone brings up some issue Star Wars had over three decades ago.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    I actually think rogue one is possibly one of the best SW movies.

    As I do too, and so do the vast majority of people. In fact, it's the single reason why I'm interested in the whole lot of nonsense again. But, because 'Rogue One' was so well executed, nobody talks about it that much. There's nothing really to discuss. It's been made, it's great and it's done. Most people are pretty much in agreement here on that film.

    However, we're in the middle of a new trilogy of movies, so the conversation is still current and a lot of folk, fan and otherwise, are just amazed at how badly they're faring so far and they're losing interest in bothering with the next one, or anything else Disney have to offer Star Wars wise. Which is something that has never happened before, even during the previous nadir of the prequels. It's so bad, people aren't even going to the see the film's any more, if 'Solo' is anything to go by.

    Disney themselves have recognised this and hit the brakes on the whole thing. And they didn't just pump them, they slammed them to the floor. If someone had told you that was going to happen three years ago, you'd have called them mad.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    What’s also funny is that I agree with a lot of your disappointment but I don’t share your hatred or rigid interpretation of what makes a movie entertaining. I can enjoy a movie through my children’s eyes. I can accept that maybe the SW franchise is not really made for me anymore. Either I enjoy what I get or I hate on the monies and expect a children’s company to make me the SW movie I really want.

    And it’s not about you not having the right to complain but seriously do you think maybe you should try and take what you can from them at this stage?

    I don't have a "rigid interpretation of what makes a movie entertaining". I find many different types of film's entertaining, as I do with music, TV or books. I enjoy them based on their own merits and will criticise them based on their own demerits - Which is why the OT "whataboutery" angle does nothing for me. It's just a smokescreen.

    As for taking "what you can from them at this stage?", that's just really a "stop talking about the flaws" sentence. If I find something largely bad, why should I just ignore that? And on an internet discussion forum, where such a thing is being discussed, not make those points?

    What's the point in just taking what I can from them at this stage? That's just kinda weak really.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    We aren’t discussing the answers to life, we are discussing the subjective qualities we interpret in movies. The whataboutedy statement is just a technique to avoid having to address obvious contradictions between what is being said that makes the new movies bad but actually exists in the originals. .

    The majority of people actually enjoyed all the newer Star Wars movies. That’s just an irrefutable fact. I think IMDB for all its flaws has a resonable scoring structure that balances out after a couple of hundred thousand votes. Do you know that most people aren’t on forums arguing about the movies cause they are ok with what they got. They aren’t emotionally invested and enjoy them as they are. The more invested you are in something the less likely you are to be objective.

    Financial success does not equate to quality of movie. I wouldn’t call titanic or avatar two of the best movies of all time but there they are...Audiences can enjoy objectively ok movies and in many regards ok movies with a little bit of everything are usually the most popular. incidentally TLJ did fine for all the waffle about how it was the end of SW. It’s the financial disaster Of solo that’s put on the brakes not TLJ.

    I don’t actually get the hate for the Rose character.


Advertisement