|
Post by darkpast on Jan 10, 2020 7:13:49 GMT
the prequels don't have a masterpiece like The Last Jedi No offense to your preference or the strongpoints of TLJ, but that’s very debatable. The prequels have been called “flawed masterpieces” by some of it’s more favorable reviewers. And if TLJ is a masterpiece it is definitely a flawed one. I can come up with a list of flaws about 2 dozen deep. i don't personally think its a masterpiece , but critics praised it for its bold choices, takedown of toxic masculinity and inclusion , which i don't agree, the film would have worked better as a part 3 in trilogy but misplaced in a middle chapter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 7:19:44 GMT
No offense to your preference or the strongpoints of TLJ, but that’s very debatable. The prequels have been called “flawed masterpieces” by some of it’s more favorable reviewers. And if TLJ is a masterpiece it is definitely a flawed one. I can come up with a list of flaws about 2 dozen deep. This "debate" cracks me up. Only one STAR WARS film has ever been nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. It sure as fuck wasn't prequel or sequel trash. A nomination is not an award, it's like a participation award. Although both sequels and prequels have had noms in other categories
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jan 10, 2020 7:22:32 GMT
This "debate" cracks me up. Only one STAR WARS film has ever been nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. It sure as fuck wasn't prequel or sequel trash. A nomination is not an award, it's like a participation award. Although both sequels and prequels have had noms in other categories I do not agree. But I appreciate your input.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 10, 2020 7:57:37 GMT
No offense to your preference or the strongpoints of TLJ, but that’s very debatable. The prequels have been called “flawed masterpieces” by some of it’s more favorable reviewers. And if TLJ is a masterpiece it is definitely a flawed one. I can come up with a list of flaws about 2 dozen deep. i don't personally think its a masterpiece , I see. To it’s credit it did. But some of those bold choices also included bad humor and sometimes very questionable and/or deflated subversion. And one particularly bad characterization. YEAH! When a film is praised for accomplishing offscreen social agendas - that tells you right there it’s praise is skewed away from what the onscreen quality really is! But it’s critics are supposedly the ones who are judging it based on prejudice and bias. (insert eye roll here) Ironically some of it’s fans seemed giddy at the characterization of Luke being trounced on in the process. As if they pegged him as a heroic symbol of toxic masculinity. But they got just as triggered (if not more) when Rey and Kylo/Ben were “tinkered with” in ways that they didn’t like. Glad to see that because those things have next to nothing to do with the quality of the storytelling. Agreed. You don’t have THAT MUCH subversion in the middle film of a trilogy, especially where it kills storylines, characters and plots. And if you do, it better be so good that it’s award winning stuff and still sets up the next movie. But as the last installment something like that would’ve fit a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 10, 2020 10:01:38 GMT
A nomination is not an award, it's like a participation award. I'm very curious on how someone could reach such a conclusion. Please, explain it to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 10:05:20 GMT
A nomination is not an award, it's like a participation award. I'm very curious on how someone could reach such a conclusion. Please, explain it to me. A nomination isnt winning
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 10, 2020 10:38:26 GMT
A nomination isnt winning Technically, every movie that voters watch are participating. Getting a nomination without winning means that the movie is better than hundreds of other movies. Not a participation award at all.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jan 10, 2020 10:49:46 GMT
At the very least there was a vision with the prequels. Lucas, wether you agree with his creative decisions or not, had a plan for the trilogy and how it would come together. At the very least it's a coherent trilogy.
The sequel trilogy isn't coherent. It's all over the place, hell Rise of Skywalker went out of its way to basically undo what Last Jedi did and when you do that you pretty much don't have a trilogy at that point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 10:51:00 GMT
A nomination isnt winning Technically, every movie that voters watch are participating. Getting a nomination without winning means that the movie is better than hundreds of other movies. Not a participation award at all. This isnt the Olympics. There is no gold, silver or bronze. No 1,2,3. Either you win an award or you dont. It's like hey guys look at me-Im a non-Oscar winner
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Jan 10, 2020 12:27:49 GMT
Prequels for me
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jan 10, 2020 12:40:40 GMT
No. The prequels definitely had potential to be better than the new trilogy (or even on par with the original trilogy), but the execution was just way too clumsy and mediocre across the board. I will say that the prequels have a significantly more coherent and focused story than the sequel trilogy. Which is also why I think the sequels work better as individual installments and the prequels work better as a combined story.
But anyways, even if the sequel trilogy as a whole is a bit of a mess in terms of a consistent narrative, they're just so much better made than the prequels that I can't agree with the statement posted in this thread. The insanely great direction of The Last Jedi alone makes it better than any of the prequels (or other sequel movies for that matter), even if it has a few iffy things plotwise. And the kinetic direction in The Force Awakens is incredible, unlike anything I've seen in any other recent blockbuster and easily J.J's best work purely directing wise. The prequels are perhaps one of the biggest cases of 'wasted potential' in blockbuster history. They could've been masterpieces of the fantasy/sci-fi genre, but the thing is that in the end they just weren't. Just because the prequels had the potential to be amazing doesn't mean they are actually are. While the prequels have better world building than the sequels, the sequels are just so much better in terms of filmmaking (direction, editing, pacing, cinematography etc.) and since I put a lot of value in those things (perhaps more than most people) it's an easy choice for me.
The Phantom Menace (4/10) vs. The Force Awakens (8/10) Attack of the Clones (4/10) vs. The Last Jedi (9/10) The Revenge of the Sith (7/10) vs. The Rise of Skywalker (5/10)
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 10, 2020 14:32:51 GMT
The “tiny” list of “a few” flaws in TLJ:
TLJ plot holes:
1. The First Order targets the base rather than fleeing ships, allowing most of the ships to get away. 2. The First Order can track in hyperspace but can’t detect Finn and Rose flying away to go on their side mission. 3. Finn and Rose arrested for parking on the beach. Why not park where everyone else parked their ships. 4. Rose gives big speech about evils of Canto Bight. Frees space horses but makes no effort to free the slave children. Just leaves them behind. 5. Rose/Finn just happen to get arrested in the same cell as another code breaker who just happens to decide that he wants to escape when they show up, when he had the means to escape the entire time. 6. Rey needs to translate Chewbacca to Luke Skywalker. 7. Holdo turns her ship into a hyperspace bomb. Why has this never been used previously in SW movies? More importantly (if you buy the argument don’t blame Rian for coming up with a clever new trick that has never been used before) why isn’t it used when the First Order first show up and attack their base?... Oh, that’s right. Because they need to be that stupid to continue the movie. 8. Why didn’t the Resistance scatter the fleet when they left the base at the beginning of the movie? You know, like they did in TESB? It would have made it impossible for the First Order to pursue the entire fleet. Maybe because the characters need to be that stupid to cover for a stupid plot and bad writing. 9. How is it that Finn and Rose are the only ones who survive the explosion right before they were going to be executed? 10. How did Phasma magically disappear from the explosion area and emerged behind a door of a faraway shielded room. 11. Phasma decided to give Rose and Finn a suffering, painful execution by be-heading them. The only problem is that it is one of the most painless forms of execution. 12. BB8 can pilot a chicken walker tank. But far less plausible, he makes the entire outer shell pop off to reveal to Rose and Finn that it’s him. 13. Bomber ships used by the Resistance in the opening battle? But there is no gravity in space. Probably the stupidest ship concept in the history of SW. 14. The First Order have immediately conquered the entire galaxy without any passage of time between TFA and TLJ. It’s chronologically impossible. 15. Finn, Rose, and DJ sneak onto Snoke’s Star Destroyer without being detected. 16. Why is GENERAL Hux in charge of the First Order space fleet? Not an admiral? 17. Why is VICE admiral Holdo in charge of the Resistance space fleet? Not a full admiral? (Rian Johnson knows about as much about military logic and strategy as a preteen Disney channel princess). 18. The escape pods to get to Krait have cloaking devices. But DJ informs the First Order about. And they begin finding the escape pods and shooting them down. Only how did DJ know this since the only ones who knew about it were Holdo and Leia. And they only told anyone else right at the time everyone used the escape pods? 19. Rose magically catches up to Finn, swings wide and crashes into him with enough impact to kill both of them - to save him. 20. Kylo commands all of the TIE fighters on Krait to go after the Millennium Falcon instead of attacking the Resistance headed to stop the cannon. 21. Rey shoots down all of the TIE fighters by herself. 22. Finn drags Rose all the way back to the base and no First Order tank or ship bothers to fire on them in the middle of an open salt desert. 23. Luke “Jake” Skywalker walks around Achto acting like Bender from Futurama, in a ridiculous characterization of a Jedi resigned to bitter hermitage. 24. Luke attempts to murder his nephew because of a Dark dream/vision about him. A very arguable betrayal of his characterization across the span of any previous movies or works. 25. Yoda shows up to tell Luke that everything that he and the Jedi Order previously taught about needing training and studying text was wrong. Rey doesn’t need any of that stuff. 26. Force ghost Yoda strikes a tree a tree with lightning to burn up the text. A power previously unseen from Force ghosts. If this was possible why don’t all of the Force ghost Jedis just use Force lighting to defeat the First Order leadership and crush them? (These are the kind of ugly plot holes created when fanfic writing by the moviemaker isn’t tested against the established universe. Just do it because it looks cool). 27. Rey decided that Yoda STILL didn’t know what he was talking about. Because she is seen stashing the texts on the Millennium Falcon. The very ones Force ghost Yoda thought he had burned. (So are we keeping count here? Luke has become a pessimistic quitting idiot. And Force ghost Yoda is a clueless mentor of an idiot). 28. The First Order can’t catch the Resistance ships because they are faster and lighter... in space... where there’s no atmosphere or gravity.
Force ghost Yoda using lightning to strike a tree: If this was possible why wouldn’t all of the Jedi Force ghosts use it against the leaders of the First Order? You might quote Yoda “a Jedi uses the Force for defense, never for attacking.” But they wouldn’t even have necessarily do that. Just show up at all of the fleets Star Destroyers and destroy the shield generators and hyperdrives with lightning. It would frustrate the military operation and turn the tide of war. And there’s plenty of precedent for the Jedi being proactive against the Darkside. This creates a mythos plot hole.
Force ghost Yoda tells Luke “We are what we grow beyond.”: A line that came across as genuinely meta and new Jedi wisdom! But he also tells Luke that he should learn from his failures and allow failures instead of trying to prevent them. “Failure is the greatest teacher.” Another line that sounds like new meta. Except it doesn’t hold up with everything that has happened onscreen in this trilogy (including Johnson’s own movie). Luke learned nothing from his failure with Kylo. It only drove him to become a pessimistic quitter. Even the fear of failure (having a vision of Kylo becoming a Darkside threat) drove him to attempt to murder his own nephew before he ever committed a crime. By contrast Rey has been the most successful, unfailing apprentice of the Lightside in history. And each success spurned on a new, greater success. This is a huge mythos plot hole!
”Training and texts. Need that she does not.”: A comment Yoda makes about Rey in his conversation with Luke. It comes off as some new meta breakthrough in the mythos of the Force (although it contradicts everything Yoda taught for 900 years). But Rian Johnson contradicts his own meta wisdom on this one! Later when Rey is on Krait in the Millennium Falcon, she is seen stashing the very text Yoda said she didn’t need, and thought he was destroying with his lightning strike.
Rey’s powers are the result of the Force choosing her as to balance itself: This new meta of the Force mythos. It was allegedly created by Johnson and his own study of the Force. And the pattern of the “tug of war/rise and fall” between the Jedi and the Sith. And there is a pattern throughout the trilogies that seems to support this. The theory goes something like this - whenever one side starts to become too powerful or dominant, the Force will choose a person on the other side and create events to balance things back out. Again, there seems to be a saga spanning pattern to support this. However, there are some issues with it upon closer examination.
If the Force has some obsessive purpose to make this happen, why has the Force only behaved this way over the past century? What was the Force doing during the thousand years the Jedi Order dominatesd and the Sith disappeared? Taking a nap? Chilling out and firing up blunts for a whole millennium? (And that thousand year period is canon, onscreen canon). Also, if the Force has this obsession, why did the Force ever allow “the rule of two” to come about in the Sith? This rule puts the Sith at a distinct, gross numbers disadvantage! (And the rule is also onscreen canon). If this is how the Force works, then the Force surely would’ve found the Darksider who created it and made sure he was dead before it ever took hold. Once again, TLJ meta that is flawed against the establishment.
|
|
Jan El Señor
Junior Member
I love everyone.
@janelsenor
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 1,247
|
Post by Jan El Señor on Jan 10, 2020 15:31:37 GMT
To it’s credit it did. But some of those bold choices also included bad humor and sometimes very questionable and/or deflated subversion. And one particularly bad characterization. Disagree. Nothing was "bold" about the choices in this film. They were stupid and contrarian for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jan 10, 2020 15:36:10 GMT
I'm not gonna go over that entire list, because I don't want to get stuck in a discussion, you can dislike TLJ and I'll respect it, it's your opinion. I just want to comment on one single thing: problem 13 "Bomber ships used by the Resistance in the opening battle? But there is no gravity in space. Probably the stupidest ship concept in the history of SW." I've seen this 'flaw' being mentioned so many times and it's so stupid. I'll try to give a relatively quick and simplified explanation. Clearly, like in pretty much any Star Wars ship there is artificial gravity inside the spaceship hull. It's the reason why Rose & the remote fall down within the spaceship and also the reason why f.e. everyone in the Millenium Falcon doesn't float in space in the OT. So the bombs fall down due to the artificial gravity within the spaceship and since there is no or almost no air resistance (since we're in space or at least in a very high part of the atmosphere of the planet), they'll just keep falling even when no longer in the artificial gravity field of the space ship. I can't see how that's confusing. What would you think there would happen, that falling objects just suddenly stop falling in space because 'there is no gravity'? That's not how physics works. Also, the whole 'there is no gravity' in space thing is not true. There is gravity in space, a lot of it. The reason why it looks to us like it isn't there is because almost everything we build is in orbit around planets, moons etc. In an orbit your velocity is so large that it balances the effect of gravity pulling you down. See it as constantly falling down to the planet, but you're travelling so fast that you're constantly missing it. It's like in this ugly paint sketch I just made. Blue is the velocity of the space ship and also a gravity vector. Purple is the resulting vector keeping you in the green orbital trajectory. However, in Star Wars a lot of the ships don't seem to orbit planets, but are instead fixed in a certain point in space, hovering instead of orbiting. While incredibly inefficient (you'd constantly need to keep burning fuel to counter gravity), this is theoretically possible. In this case, all objects that you release fall straight down to the planet and gravity works exactly the same as on the planet's surface (say at 80% of its strength or something like that). The reason we never see this in real life it's incredibly inefficient to hover at a fixed location in space. With 'fixed location' I don't mean a geostationairy orbit, I literally mean having a 0 velocity relative to the planet and constantly using tons of fuel to stay afloat. But perhaps such technology exists in the Star Wars universe in all of the movies, they also have fictional technology like artificial gravity fields. Once again illustrated with this ugly paint sketch I made. Whatever is the case, if the space ship is hovering then the objects would fall straight down. If the space ship is in orbit but there is artificial gravity on the space ship, the objects keep falling down (maybe not 100% straight down depending on the relative velocity between the bombers and the ship under attack, but close enough). Only if there would be no artificial gravity on the space ship and if the ship is in orbit, this wouldn't work (in that case the objects would just stay in orbit with the space ship) but that's clearly not the case. Is it the most optimal space ship design? Probably not. But does it look cool (imo) and does it follow the laws of physics (which Star Wars breaks many times in most of its movies numerous times anymways)? Yes. This post is probably longer than intended, I guess it's just the physics part of me getting annoyed every time it's brought up and now I just wanted to say something about it. Source: me, bachelor degree in aerospace engineering
|
|
Jan El Señor
Junior Member
I love everyone.
@janelsenor
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 1,247
|
Post by Jan El Señor on Jan 10, 2020 15:47:42 GMT
I'm not gonna go over that entire list, because I don't want to get stuck in a discussion, you can dislike TLJ and I'll respect it, it's your opinion. I just want to comment on one single thing: problem 13 "Bomber ships used by the Resistance in the opening battle? But there is no gravity in space. Probably the stupidest ship concept in the history of SW." I never saw that as an issue. Even if it was an issue, it's the least of that film's problems....
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 10, 2020 15:52:21 GMT
To it’s credit it did. But some of those bold choices also included bad humor and sometimes very questionable and/or deflated subversion. And one particularly bad characterization. Disagree. Nothing was "bold" about the choices in this film. They were stupid and contrarian for no good reason. Well that was the problem wasn’t it? The writer couldn’t tell the difference between real subversive boldness and illogical, pointless, empty subversion that just creates shock value. Most of it was the latter. And the few that might’ve been the former (in concept) failed in execution.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 10, 2020 15:55:45 GMT
I'm not gonna go over that entire list, because I don't want to get stuck in a discussion, you can dislike TLJ and I'll respect it, it's your opinion. I just want to comment on one single thing: problem 13 "Bomber ships used by the Resistance in the opening battle? But there is no gravity in space. Probably the stupidest ship concept in the history of SW." I've seen this 'flaw' being mentioned so many times and it's so stupid. I'll try to give a relatively quick and simplified explanation. Clearly, like in pretty much any Star Wars ship there is artificial gravity inside the spaceship hull. It's the reason why Rose & the remote fall down within the spaceship and also the reason why f.e. everyone in the Millenium Falcon doesn't float in space in the OT. So the bombs fall down due to the artificial gravity within the spaceship and since there is no or almost no air resistance (since we're in space or at least in a very high part of the atmosphere of the planet), they'll just keep falling even when no longer in the artificial gravity field of the space ship. I can't see how that's confusing. What would you think there would happen, that falling objects just suddenly stop falling in space because 'there is no gravity'? That's not how physics works. Also, the whole 'there is no gravity' in space thing is not true. There is gravity in space, a lot of it. The reason why it looks to us like it isn't there is because almost everything we build is in orbit around planets, moons etc. In an orbit your velocity is so large that it balances the effect of gravity pulling you down. See it as constantly falling down to the planet, but you're travelling so fast that you're constantly missing it. It's like in this ugly paint sketch I just made. Blue is the velocity of the space ship and also a gravity vector. Purple is the resulting vector keeping you in the green orbital trajectory. However, in Star Wars a lot of the ships don't seem to orbit planets, but are instead fixed in a certain point in space, hovering instead of orbiting. While incredibly inefficient (you'd constantly need to keep burning fuel to counter gravity), this is theoretically possible. In this case, all objects that you release fall straight down to the planet and gravity works exactly the same as on the planet's surface (say at 80% of its strength or something like that). The reason we never see this in real life it's incredibly inefficient to hover at a fixed location in space. With 'fixed location' I don't mean a geostationairy orbit, I literally mean having a 0 velocity relative to the planet and constantly using tons of fuel to stay afloat. But perhaps such technology exists in the Star Wars universe in all of the movies, they also have fictional technology like artificial gravity fields. Once again illustrated with this ugly paint sketch I made. Whatever is the case, if the space ship is hovering then the objects would fall straight down. If the space ship is in orbit but there is artificial gravity on the space ship, the objects keep falling down (maybe not 100% straight down depending on the relative velocity between the bombers and the ship under attack, but close enough). Only if there would be no artificial gravity on the space ship and if the ship is in orbit, this wouldn't work (in that case the objects would just stay in orbit with the space ship) but that's clearly not the case. Is it the most optimal space ship design? Probably not. But does it look cool (imo) and does it follow the laws of physics (which Star Wars breaks many times in most of its movies numerous times anymways)? Yes. This post is probably longer than intended, I guess it's just the physics part of me getting annoyed every time it's brought up and now I just wanted to say something about it. Source: me, bachelor degree in aerospace engineering Thanks for the explanation...
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 10, 2020 15:59:32 GMT
prequels, and a blind person could see it for
- art design - coherent storytelling - substance & message - world building & lore - technical achievements - compliance with what came before
The sequels will live on in infamy how not to do a trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 10, 2020 16:08:53 GMT
Yes overall the prequels are better than the new trilogy.
The Prequel Trilogy-6.5/10 The Sequel Trilogy-6/10
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jan 10, 2020 16:08:59 GMT
Sorry if that post came across as a bit passive aggressive, I just saw this mentioned so many times and wanted to say something about it. It's not meant as a personal attack or something like that .
|
|