Movies: Star Wars: Rogue One Part II Release date Dec 14th

[Shareefruck]

Well like I said. I just feel TFA gets a tougher rap for recycling elements than just about every film series out there.

The sensation I get is some people look for reasons not to like it. I understand it can go the other way. Fanboyism can put on the blinders to flaws. I can't pretend I'm not a huge star wars fan. I changed my name to Han Solo. But I do my best to analyze TFA critically. And yes it has its flaws. Overdependence on nostalgia is one of them, and recycling the X wing assault on a big round superweapon is another. But for me it doesn't bother me all that much. For all the familiarity, there's enough freshness that I enjoy. From a filmmaking standpoint it's a terrifically crafted movie in just about every respect other than the Rathtars and some forgettable John Williams work. The action is well done though the movie does suffer from a breakneck pace at times. I don't know. To me, it's a fun movie. It doesn't do much thats new but that seems to be the biggest concern.

You get to a point where people say it's an awful movie. And the reason is always the same: its too similar to ANH and ESB. It doesn't do enough thats new. The 7th movie in a film series is borrowing too much from the past and THAT makes it an awful movie? Come on.

We've had how many Bond movies now? 24? In what way are Bond movies thematically different? Bond does an action sequence to start the movie, the villain's plot slowly unravels as Bond is put on assignment, Bond goes to exotic locations, fights bad guys, investigates the matter at hand and uses his skills and gadgets to elaborately stop the villain. The difference being that the Bronsan and Moore eras brought the campiness factor and the Craig era films were Nolanized and expanded to delve into Bond's past and psyche. But for 24 films the same elements are present in just about every film to the point where quotes are recycled. No one complains. No one. They keep making them, people keep going to see them, and it's a well beloved series. Indiana Jones is another example, albeit a shorter run of films. Even within the Star Wars original trilogy and the prequel trilogy, elements are recycled. Pretty blatantly. But no one's biggest issue with the Prequels is the recycling of plot and dialogue elements. People don't like the prequels because they are poorly written, poorly acted, and the overabundance of CGI makes for an unnatural cinematic experience.

I just think the familiarity factor is vastly overblown and I do believe in some circles there are those that didn't want to like this movie and were looking for reasons to be disappointed. And I'm sure others just simply didn't enjoy it. But the former group certainly exists in the form of what I perceive to be a hivemind. How big that group is, I don't know for sure but I'd say it's substantial. Just my view. I don't think that every person is disingenuous in their dislike of TFA.

My dog in this race is that I do like this movie a fair bit. I've said many times, it's around A New Hope for me for my personal rankings. I don't think any Star Wars films are masterpieces. Not even Empire Strikes Back. TFA is no masterpiece but to me it's at worst a fun and entertaining movie that from a technical perspective is well made. All Star Wars has to be for me is entertaining. Episodes 4 5 6 and 7 are all entertaining to me. 3 to a very minor extent is watchable. 2 and 1 are insufferable to me at this point. And it's just that popular opinion goes on to define how a movie is perceived down the line. I see far too many people call it terrible with the recycled plot elements being the only major complaint they have. I already think the line between what people perceive too be good and absolute dog **** is paper thin these days to begin with, but I don't think TFA's flaws warrant a label of terrible.

I have no bone to pick with whether or not you thought it was a good movie or even whether or not you feel that the criticism that it gets is warranted. You make perfectly understandable points about that (I would disagree with alot of them, but that's beside the point) and certainly, there's nothing wrong whatsoever with even ruthlessly trashing someone's else's opinion/reasoning due to flaws that you see in the logic. I'm all for that.

However, I do take exception to the additional move of taking the understandable conclusion, "I think the criticism is unwarranted and that people who hold these views are wrong" and going the extra mile with "Therefore, why do they hold this wrong opinion? Well, it's probably because alot of them went into the movie with a narrow mind and WANTED to hate it or are simply trying to be cool and are a part of a hive-mind mentality." To me these kinds of suggestions are a massive leap to make and is a pretty serious/loaded charge to throw out there willy nilly-- someone would need to have pretty conclusive evidence to justify opening up that can of worms. Your feeling that their criticism is unjustified/inconsistent alone is not entirely relevant to that, and is certainly insufficient.

There are a number of alternative reasons that can explain why people hold their views despite your criticism of their criticism. Most obviously, they may be able to refute and find holes in your argument. Even if that isn't the case and we assume that you've proven that their argument IS invalid, they could still have simply presented it poorly or failed to verbalize the real valid reasons that they thought it was bad. Even if other movies are just as guilty of actual similarities, the argument can still be made if the issue is more that it draws attention to its flaws more than other movies or does a weaker job of distracting from them, or for whatever reason, simply doesn't feel right in this instance. Even if a person further concedes that they indeed have bad reasons and that their opinion does in fact come from bias/ignorance/narrow-mindedness, that's still no reason to suggest that it's fueled by something more sinister like "wanting to dislike it" or "wanting to be cool" or "having a hive-mind mentality". Do you see what I mean? Even if there is an arguable basis for their wrongness, there is no basis given for this further charge of moronic/dishonest/sinister behavior.

Taking a potentially unfavorable conclusion and jumping the gun about people's intentions is a conversation stopper that we shouldn't be so quick to devolve into. It can be incredibly insulting and frustrating to deal with, particularly because there's no meat in the suggestion to even be able to grab onto and engage with. The fact that the charge is lobbed just generally at nobody in particular is actually worse, because it makes it even more impossible to engage and defend, and yet the underlying loaded sentiment is still communicated loud and clear.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Not whether or not people's criticisms are justified-- that's an entirely different argument that I could get into but won't.

 

[HanSolo]

Fair enough. I'll go on liking the movie. Simple as that.

 

[kingsholygrail]

That was just a 3 second joke, it is a little different...

Force Awakens to me was ok, but nothing really magical. It was cool seeing the OT crew again

Raiders of the Lost Ark:
Archaeologist adventurer battles Nazis to recover a powerful Christian artifact

The Last Crusade:
Archaeologist adventurer battles Nazis to recover a powerful Christian artifact

 

[Takeo]

Just rewatched tfa again. Im 95% sure people hating on it are doing it either decided they werent going to like it going in (either consciously or unconsciously) or are doing it to be cool. It is a star wars movie through and through. Fun fast paced adventure scifi movie. Its what star wars has always been based on. Its got some issues, and by no means is perfect but it is what it set out to be. A return to true star wars type story telling. I enjoyed it its not meant to be deep thinking philosophical/emotional movie.

The original cast was clumsy and awkward. Carrie Fisher was unwatchable. Maz and Snoke were disappointing and underwhelming characters. The CGI was bad, i.e. cartoon freighter squids. Finn's forced humor became irritating. The story was never at any moment compelling. The score? Other than the opening scene and Rey's jingle, where was it? It also had a lot of JJ Abrams tropes but those a better suited for a Google search.

 

[tacogeoff]

Just rewatched tfa again. . It is a star wars movie through and through. Fun fast paced adventure scifi movie. Its what star wars has always been based on. Its got some issues, and by no means is perfect but it is what it set out to be. A return to true star wars type story telling. I enjoyed it its not meant to be deep thinking philosophical/emotional movie.

I agree. It was a ridiculously fun action/sci-fi movie to watch. I am not sure what people expected going in based on what was released via trailers and online summaries. I think people over analyse things these days. The originals were not masterpieces by any means either.

Should be interesting to see if R1 can beat the financial bars set oh so high by TFA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set_by_Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens

 

[Shareefruck]

Fair enough. I'll go on liking the movie. Simple as that.

Great!

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Should be interesting to see if R1 can beat the financial bars set oh so high by TFA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set_by_Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens

I doubt it comes close. Depends on China, I guess.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Personally I cant stand Rey and Finn. I hope it turns out Rey is Palpatines daughter and thats why she was abandoned on a desert planet, probably thanks to Luke who like Abrams copied what worked

 

[Nalens Oga]

When I re-watched TFA, I watched it on Netflix and didn't enjoy it as much as when I saw it in the theatre. It was the most fun I had watching a film in a theatre in years. The acting wasn't as cheesy as in the prequels or obviously the originals and the story's pace was excellent plus it felt a bit grittier and more tense. I do admit that it didn't seem as good watchign it on a laptop on Netflix but it was still a solid film, tbh I'm not that into re-watching films to begin with though I did get a bit of a crush on Rey on rewatch

Not really feeling the excitement for Rogue One though, I wasn't even a big Star Wars fan and I was super-excited to see TFA when it came out, I guess the excellent TFA trailer played a big role in that.

But you can't make everone happy, nothing is universally loved anymore, increasing numbers of people are ******** on anything done by Chris Nolan now because he got so big including Inception/TDK and it wasn't to the same extent until after Inception had been out for a while.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Raiders of the Lost Ark:
Archaeologist adventurer battles Nazis to recover a powerful Christian artifact

The Last Crusade:
Archaeologist adventurer battles Nazis to recover a powerful Christian artifact

The Arc is Jewish, later adopted by the Christians.

. I enjoyed it its not meant to be deep thinking philosophical/emotional movie.

There's an enormous difference between criticizing something for not being intellectual and "deep thinking"; and criticizing something for being poorly written.

 

[kingsholygrail]

The Arc is Jewish, later adopted by the Christians.



There's an enormous difference between criticizing something for not being intellectual and "deep thinking"; and criticizing something for being poorly written.

Christ was Jewish and later adopted by the Christians as well.

 

[Jumptheshark]

????????????

not sure where this thread went sideways

 

[Jussi]

????????????

not sure where this thread went sideways

The Force works in mysterious ways.

 

[ColePens]

Just rewatched tfa again. Im 95% sure people hating on it are doing it either decided they werent going to like it going in (either consciously or unconsciously) or are doing it to be cool. It is a star wars movie through and through. Fun fast paced adventure scifi movie. Its what star wars has always been based on. Its got some issues, and by no means is perfect but it is what it set out to be. A return to true star wars type story telling. I enjoyed it its not meant to be deep thinking philosophical/emotional movie.

Very much agree. I went and saw it 4 times. I just loved it. I don't know how a Star Wars fan could go to that and not like it. But in toady's world, people want to hate things so badly. I've watched it again and just smile the whole time. Such a great flick.

Time to re-watch ANH just to get ready for R1.

 

[XX]

But in toady's world, people want to hate things so badly.

People also want to worship and defend things really badly. See how productive that is?

TFA has major issues and doesn't hold a candle to the OT. This will dawn on everyone when they're exposed to newer stories that are told rather than old stuff rehashed. Smashing the nostalgia button as hard as you can for two hours doesn't make for a good movie that will withstand the test of time.

The thing is, TFA doesn't have to be good if it's the launching point for a dozen other efforts that are all superior. JJ Abrams mission was to safely launch the franchise again and they did that. It's okay for it to have problems and to not be ideal.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

People also want to worship and defend things really badly. See how productive that is?

TFA has major issues and doesn't hold a candle to the OT. This will dawn on everyone when they're exposed to newer stories that are told rather than old stuff rehashed. Smashing the nostalgia button as hard as you can for two hours doesn't make for a good movie that will withstand the test of time.

The thing is, TFA doesn't have to be good if it's the launching point for a dozen other efforts that are all superior. JJ Abrams mission was to safely launch the franchise again and they did that. It's okay for it to have problems and to not be ideal.

I think this post summarizes my feelings pretty well. For myself the movie wasn't terrible nor great, the epitome of a "meh" film. Full disclosure: I liked the film's setup and most of the first half (outside of what ultimately turned out to be a misfire of a character in Finn that was saved by Boyega, his presence and delivery was probably my biggest positive takeway). Second half of the film, on the other hand, threw my interest down the toilet.

But as far as focus group filmmaking goes, it at least brought enough positives with the excellent young cast and setup to venture forward in more rewarding directions. Hopefully, Rogue One will be the start of this trend.

 

[The Drop]

Just rewatched tfa again. Im 95% sure people hating on it are doing it either decided they werent going to like it going in (either consciously or unconsciously) or are doing it to be cool. It is a star wars movie through and through. Fun fast paced adventure scifi movie. Its what star wars has always been based on. Its got some issues, and by no means is perfect but it is what it set out to be. A return to true star wars type story telling. I enjoyed it its not meant to be deep thinking philosophical/emotional movie.

It was a rehash. That's why it felt like Star Wars.the problem here was there was nothing original and It took no chances.

Disney puts their lame forced humor into literally every franchise and IMO it's what plagues their Marvel movies.

 

[JA]

It was a rehash. That's why it felt like Star Wars.the problem here was there was nothing original and It took no chances.

Disney puts their lame forced humor into literally every franchise and IMO it's what plagues their Marvel movies.

I believe that The Force Awakens was extremely necessary. A New Hope played a major role in reinventing action cinema in the West, but that means that its pacing and cinematography are entrenched in the old style of cinema with lengthy, still shots and very slow plot progression. The first half-hour is all about people and robots wandering around aimlessly in the desert; apparently, when an acquaintance of mine showed his nephew this film recently, the kid said he was bored by it before the Falcon ever took off from Tattooine. In its own time, A New Hope was progressive. Today, it drags along. Kids now have a modern reboot that never stalls. Standards for fun in the 1970s were not the same as they are today -- it's no longer fun for kids to watch A New Hope.

Half of Return of the Jedi, meanwhile, feels like a Star Wars-themed episode of The Muppets, and the Battle for Endor breaks the viewer's immersion with an hour of stupidity. It is a stark contrast to the mysterious, suspenseful, and sometimes frightening The Empire Strikes Back. I love Luke's final encounter with the Emperor and Vader and the scene at Yoda's death bed, but that isn't enough to redeem the film.

The Force Awakens is one of only two films in the series to feel cohesive and polished with regards to modern standards. The other films suffer from misdirection.

 

[kingsholygrail]

It was a rehash. That's why it felt like Star Wars.the problem here was there was nothing original and It took no chances.

Disney puts their lame forced humor into literally every franchise and IMO it's what plagues their Marvel movies.

Kylo Ren was different.

 

[XX]

Kids now have a modern reboot that never stalls.

That's why it will never withstand the test of time, nor will any corporate focus grouped ADD made Disney product. You need to slow down, revel in the moment, the imagery, the dialogue. You need to make smart choices.

This scene wouldn't make it into a modern Disney Star Wars:


Yet it's so crucial for ANH.

TFA is so overactive and yet it covers so little narrative ground. Compare the plots and the players between the two. Han's character is established in almost one scene. Same for Obi Wan. Luke isn't perfect and has to go through a progression. ANH covers a lot of ground, even though by modern standards it "drags." Compare it to TFA, which barely explains anything, and is constantly relying on referencing things they hope the audience has already seen. That's an incredibly dumb recipe to use and it means the movie cannot stand up on its own.

Kylo Ren comes off as feeling the 'best' part of TFA because his character gets the best writing. Rey and Finn are well acted but their motivations are wooden.

TFA is a well produced popcorn flick but that's not what Star Wars movies should aspire to, because that's not what the OT is. Rogue One has more room to maneuver so I'm curious to see how it comes out, especially with the reshoots.

 

[Shareefruck]

That's why it will never withstand the test of time, nor will any corporate focus grouped ADD made Disney product. You need to slow down, revel in the moment, the imagery, the dialogue. You need to make smart choices.

This scene wouldn't make it into a modern Disney Star Wars:


Yet it's so crucial for ANH.

TFA is so overactive and yet it covers so little narrative ground. Compare the plots and the players between the two. Han's character is established in almost one scene. Same for Obi Wan. Luke isn't perfect and has to go through a progression. ANH covers a lot of ground, even though by modern standards it "drags." Compare it to TFA, which barely explains anything, and is constantly relying on referencing things they hope the audience has already seen. That's an incredibly dumb recipe to use and it means the movie cannot stand up on its own.

Kylo Ren comes off as feeling the 'best' part of TFA because his character gets the best writing. Rey and Finn are well acted but their motivations are wooden.

TFA is a well produced popcorn flick but that's not what Star Wars movies should aspire to, because that's not what the OT is. Rogue One has more room to maneuver so I'm curious to see how it comes out, especially with the reshoots.

Absolutely.

God, that sentiment about lengthy still shots being the old way of cinema that no longer holds up is so ****ing depressing and wrong-headed. Everything that makes a movie great is considered too challenging now.

 

[JA]

Absolutely.

God, that sentiment about lengthy still shots being the old way of cinema that no longer holds up is so ****ing depressing and wrong-headed. Everything that makes a movie great is considered too challenging now.

Everything that made movies great. A New Hope, ironically, was the first film to begin moving cinema culture away from that slow, plodding style. It played a role in shattering the old rules of cinema and paved the way for a greater follow-up that represented the end of old action cinema -- The Empire Strikes Back.

The new War for the Planet of the Apes trailer was just released. The consensus is that these new films stand on their own and could even be considered better films than the original Planet of the Apes films. The original film has merits, but it isn't better than Rise or Dawn. An old franchise can be reinvigorated with modern direction.

There aren't any dull moments in the new Mad Max film; many consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece. I don't appreciate the film's lack of story depth, but it has been praised for pushing the modern standards of filmmaking by filtering everything out except for the high-octane action and barrage of spectacular visuals. It has been deemed a great film because it is on the opposite end of the style spectrum.

A New Hope is not a suspense film; it is not Alien in the sense that the slow moments build fear in the audience. Alien, released in 1979, already featured the new style of cinematography. The 30 minutes of R2-D2 and C3PO wandering around and bumbling about on Tattooine do nothing for the film. The film became famous because of its final act, not its opening act. Audiences walked away from the theater raving about the rescue mission and the assault on the Death Star, not the sand and the moisture farm.

Old standards aren't better by default. Cinema has evolved.

 

[Shareefruck]

Everything that made movies great. A New Hope, ironically, was the first film to begin moving cinema culture away from that slow, plodding style. It played a role in shattering the old rules of cinema and paved the way for a greater follow-up that represented the end of old action cinema -- The Empire Strikes Back.

The new War for the Planet of the Apes trailer was just released. The consensus is that these new films stand on their own and could even be considered better films than the original Planet of the Apes films. The original film has merits, but it isn't better than Rise or Dawn. An old franchise can be reinvigorated with modern direction.

There aren't any dull moments in the new Mad Max film; many consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece. I don't appreciate the film's lack of story depth, but it has been praised for pushing the modern standards of filmmaking by filtering everything out except for the high-octane action and barrage of spectacular visuals. It has been deemed a great film because it is on the opposite end of the style spectrum.

A New Hope is not a suspense film; it is not Alien in the sense that the slow moments build fear in the audience. Alien, released in 1979, already featured the new style of cinematography. The 30 minutes of R2-D2 and C3PO wandering around and bumbling about on Tattooine do nothing for the film. The film became famous because of its final act, not its opening act. Audiences walked away from the theater raving about the rescue mission and the assault on the Death Star, not the sand and the moisture farm.

Old standards aren't better by default. Cinema has evolved.

I think I'm going to throw up. I couldn't disagree more.

A great movie is great because of the impression it's capable of leaving on you, and that remains the same when approached from any era or context-- you don't need to put yourself in a certain era/context to appreciate them and things aren't merely great for the time that they were made in-- great movies transcend the superficial fashion/constraints that are common for their time, and movies that ACTUALLY become dated and require that context were probably never truly that great to begin with, IMO-- principles that are lasting work because they will always work, because it makes reasonable sense why it would work, not because they're simply fashionable for their time. Inability to appreciate movies that function in a context different from the one that's common to our own era is simply ignorance, superficiality, and narrow-mindedness-- something that we're capable of, we should, and is worth overcoming-- not anything that speaks to the actual potential of something.

If every movie simply races from point A to B to C, hoping to never leave a dull moment, and never allowing a moment to breath and linger where appropriate, that ONLY helps the accessibility of a movie at the expense of putting a ceiling on how lastingly impactful and powerful it can truly be. The former is FAR less valuable than the latter. Even strong, high quality material delivered hastily can lose something that it otherwise wouldn't. Being the fashion/trend of our time does not make this right, effective, or acceptable.

If what you're saying is truly the case, then cinema has devolved, IMO. Luckily that's not the case that there are still great movies being made that take the appropriate time, care, and patience required to build an experience that is capable of immersing on more than a superficial ADD level. Even if we're talking about action/adventure/blockbuster movies, that's the case, IMO.

It matters not because of some outdated/misguided reverence for traditional/default standards, it matters because successfully allowing a movie time and room to breath is more rewarding and necessary to get the full effect across. If the ONLY intended effect is to give you the break-neck thrill of a roller-coaster ride, it's worth nothing. And as much as A New Hope and An Empire Strikes Back were not slow suspenseful movies by any stretch, it's more than a typical forgettable blockbuster in part because of the rhythm in which it's presented, and that would be true if you watched it in 1977 or if you watched it now.

Man, that sentiment's upsetting. Movies are not like computer parts that just get better and better because they become more and more quick and efficient as everything advances. You don't simply look back at an old timeless masterpiece as if it were an old computer model that has served its purpose for its time but has become obsolete next to a newer model.

 

[HanSolo]

Kylo Ren was different.

So was Finn's entire story arc. People are blinded by his goofiness and forget that we've never had a character from the bad side come over to the good guys to become a protagonist in the Star Wars films.

There's more new things in there but that's one thing people conveniently leave out when they say there was "nothing new" in TFA.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Everything that made movies great. A New Hope, ironically, was the first film to begin moving cinema culture away from that slow, plodding style. It played a role in shattering the old rules of cinema and paved the way for a greater follow-up that represented the end of old action cinema -- The Empire Strikes Back.

The new War for the Planet of the Apes trailer was just released. The consensus is that these new films stand on their own and could even be considered better films than the original Planet of the Apes films. The original film has merits, but it isn't better than Rise or Dawn. An old franchise can be reinvigorated with modern direction.

There aren't any dull moments in the new Mad Max film; many consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece. I don't appreciate the film's lack of story depth, but it has been praised for pushing the modern standards of filmmaking by filtering everything out except for the high-octane action and barrage of spectacular visuals. It has been deemed a great film because it is on the opposite end of the style spectrum.

A New Hope is not a suspense film; it is not Alien in the sense that the slow moments build fear in the audience. Alien, released in 1979, already featured the new style of cinematography. The 30 minutes of R2-D2 and C3PO wandering around and bumbling about on Tattooine do nothing for the film. The film became famous because of its final act, not its opening act. Audiences walked away from the theater raving about the rescue mission and the assault on the Death Star, not the sand and the moisture farm.

Old standards aren't better by default. Cinema has evolved.

But you don't get the proper build up to those big moments in the movies without that beginning setup even if it's not spectacular, it's the foundation that makes the climax have so much more of a payoff.