moviemeisters
Sophomore
"Cinema is not a slice of life, but a piece of cake."
@moviemeisters
Posts: 190
Likes: 99
 
|
Post by moviemeisters on Jun 20, 2017 4:09:34 GMT
While I think TFA and RO were okay, they're clearly lacking in elements of interesting (or original) storytelling:
One is essentially a remake of a story we've seen before and the other is essentially an uninteresting part of said story.
Both films reek of the strictly business-oriented mentality that has plagued Hollywood in recent decades. They don't focus on giving us an interesting or thought-provoking story. They care mainly about how many people they can get to see it and how they can get people to see the next one.
That said, I think TLJ might be good, because Rian Johnson made one of the more interesting and original Sci-Fi stories in recent years (Looper) and he indicated the following as inspirations for The Last Jedi:
-Gunga Din (1939)
-Sahara (1943)
-Twelve O'Clock High (1949)
-The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
-Letter Never Sent (1960)
-Three Outlaw Samurai (1964)
These are good (to great) character-centric war/samurai movies. They're perfectly appropriate for a Star Wars story. The fact that Johnson is familiar with these classics and intends to highlight them with his film gives me faith in it. My concern lies in how much studio input/interference will be involved. Will they force Johnson to change the story in a specific way? Will they force Johnson put in fan-service and set ups for other movies aside from Ep. IX? Who knows?
I just hope this ends up being a good film...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nightman on Jun 20, 2017 13:14:56 GMT
Yep, the one thing you need to worry about is Disney making sure the story isn't too good. They don't mind their other properties making great movies, but for some reason, they like to hold Star Wars back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 17:58:37 GMT
Yep, the one thing you need to worry about is Disney making sure the story isn't too good. They don't mind their other properties making great movies, but for some reason, they like to hold Star Wars back. It's because Disney doesn't know how to do sci-fi. Star Wars is part science fiction and part space fantasy. Nobody can question Disney's talent at fantasy. But they suck at science fiction. There first sci-fi film "The Black Hole" in 1979 had mediocre box office results and very mixed critic reviews. It may have been the first Disney movie to be roundly criticized. Then in 2011 came "Mars Needs Moms", a science fiction entry from Disney with some kids/family fantasy mixed in. It was a colossal flop! A budget of $150 million and it only brought in $40 million at the box office. Disney doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to sci-fi and it showed in TFA. The sci-fi elements of the film were bad. And they covered it over by using an awful lot of rehash from ANH. Then infusing their most successful modern character archetype, the story of a Disney warrior princess as the fantasy element attraction. That worked to the tune of $2 billion. But your question is a fair one. Will Kathleen Kennedy and Disney actually trust any of the story writers/filmmakers with making original sci-fi/space fantasy storytelling, and how much? Or will they be largely chained to the TFA formula over and over again? |
|
|
|
Post by Nightman on Jun 20, 2017 18:41:02 GMT
It's because Disney doesn't know how to do sci-fi. Star Wars is part science fiction and part space fantasy. Nobody can question Disney's talent at fantasy. But they suck at science fiction. There first sci-fi film "The Black Hole" in 1979 had mediocre box office results and very mixed critic reviews. It may have been the first Disney movie to be roundly criticized. Then in 2011 came "Mars Needs Moms", a science fiction entry from Disney with some kids/family fantasy mixed in. It was a colossal flop! A budget of $150 million and it only brought in $40 million at the box office. Disney doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to sci-fi and it showed in TFA. The sci-fi elements of the film were bad. And they covered it over by using an awful lot of rehash from ANH. Then infusing their most successful modern character archetype, the story of a Disney warrior princess as the fantasy element attraction. That worked to the tune of $2 billion. But your question is a fair one. Will Kathleen Kennedy and Disney actually trust any of the story writers/filmmakers with making original sci-fi/space fantasy storytelling, and how much? Or will they be largely chained to the TFA formula over and over again? I didn't know Disney itself was that bad at sci fi. JJ Abrams sucks at sci fi; anybody who is familiar with LOST and the Star Trek reboots can confirm this. Kathleen Kennedy seems to have a helluva lot of experience around sci fi movies, yet seems to have learned nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jun 20, 2017 19:09:14 GMT
While I think TFA and RO were okay, they're clearly lacking in elements of interesting (or original) storytelling: One is essentially a remake of a story we've seen before and the other is essentially an uninteresting part of said story. Both films reek of the strictly business-oriented mentality that has plagued Hollywood in recent decades. They don't focus on giving us an interesting or thought-provoking story. They care mainly about how many people they can get to see it and how they can get people to see the next one. That said, I think TLJ might be good, because Rian Johnson made one of the more interesting and original Sci-Fi stories in recent years (Looper) and he indicated the following as inspirations for The Last Jedi:
-Gunga Din (1939)
-Sahara (1943)
-Twelve O'Clock High (1949)
-The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
-Letter Never Sent (1960)
-Three Outlaw Samurai (1964)
These are good (to great) character-centric war/samurai movies. They're perfectly appropriate for a Star Wars story. The fact that Johnson is familiar with these classics and intends to highlight them with his film gives me faith in it. My concern lies in how much studio input/interference will be involved. Will they force Johnson to change the story in a specific way? Will they force Johnson put in fan-service and set ups for other movies aside from Ep. IX? Who knows? I just hope this ends up being a good film... Complaining that the movie lacks originality and then going on and using the director of the sequel's words about how he is drawing inspiration from as many as six other previous movies is a little counterproductive to your argument. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 19:59:24 GMT
It's because Disney doesn't know how to do sci-fi. Star Wars is part science fiction and part space fantasy. Nobody can question Disney's talent at fantasy. But they suck at science fiction. There first sci-fi film "The Black Hole" in 1979 had mediocre box office results and very mixed critic reviews. It may have been the first Disney movie to be roundly criticized. Then in 2011 came "Mars Needs Moms", a science fiction entry from Disney with some kids/family fantasy mixed in. It was a colossal flop! A budget of $150 million and it only brought in $40 million at the box office. Disney doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to sci-fi and it showed in TFA. The sci-fi elements of the film were bad. And they covered it over by using an awful lot of rehash from ANH. Then infusing their most successful modern character archetype, the story of a Disney warrior princess as the fantasy element attraction. That worked to the tune of $2 billion. But your question is a fair one. Will Kathleen Kennedy and Disney actually trust any of the story writers/filmmakers with making original sci-fi/space fantasy storytelling, and how much? Or will they be largely chained to the TFA formula over and over again? I didn't know Disney itself was that bad at sci fi. JJ Abrams sucks at sci fi; anybody who is familiar with LOST and the Star Trek reboots can confirm this. Kathleen Kennedy seems to have a helluva lot of experience around sci fi movies, yet seems to have learned nothing. It's probably fair to say that after Kathleen Kennedy got that big, fat position and that big, fat paycheck from Disney she became their chief lackey, sycophant and sellout. And as you already know from personal experience, Abrams is taylor made for suspenseful but hollow storytelling packaged into shallow formulas. |
|
ryboto
Sophomore
@ryboto
Posts: 776
Likes: 724
|
Post by ryboto on Jun 20, 2017 20:55:40 GMT
Looper sucked...if he shows the same disregard for maintaining some basis in our scientific reality, he'll fit right in with the ridiculousness JJ created in TFA...
SO did the ENTIRE galaxy get to see those planets explode, zoomed in, in real time, or just our main characters who were on a planet 70 light years away? What a dipshit.
|
|
moviemeisters
Sophomore
"Cinema is not a slice of life, but a piece of cake."
@moviemeisters
Posts: 190
Likes: 99
|
Post by moviemeisters on Jun 21, 2017 5:10:39 GMT
While I think TFA and RO were okay, they're clearly lacking in elements of interesting (or original) storytelling: One is essentially a remake of a story we've seen before and the other is essentially an uninteresting part of said story. Both films reek of the strictly business-oriented mentality that has plagued Hollywood in recent decades. They don't focus on giving us an interesting or thought-provoking story. They care mainly about how many people they can get to see it and how they can get people to see the next one. That said, I think TLJ might be good, because Rian Johnson made one of the more interesting and original Sci-Fi stories in recent years (Looper) and he indicated the following as inspirations for The Last Jedi:
-Gunga Din (1939)
-Sahara (1943)
-Twelve O'Clock High (1949)
-The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
-Letter Never Sent (1960)
-Three Outlaw Samurai (1964)
These are good (to great) character-centric war/samurai movies. They're perfectly appropriate for a Star Wars story. The fact that Johnson is familiar with these classics and intends to highlight them with his film gives me faith in it. My concern lies in how much studio input/interference will be involved. Will they force Johnson to change the story in a specific way? Will they force Johnson put in fan-service and set ups for other movies aside from Ep. IX? Who knows? I just hope this ends up being a good film... Complaining that the movie lacks originality and then going on and using the director of the sequel's words about how he is drawing inspiration from as many as six other previous movies is a little counterproductive to your argument. Well, you do have a point there, but I believe there's a fine line between taking inspiration from things and bordering on remake. These films have styles and sensibilities that would be unique in the Star Wars narrative without feeling out of place, so, I guess, if anything, they'd be original in the Star Wars mythos. Point is, though. These films were character-centric and, at least, pretty good, so, if there's any chance that their more favorable elements could find their way into TLJ, then I'm all for it. Thanks for the response! |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jun 21, 2017 16:58:51 GMT
Complaining that the movie lacks originality and then going on and using the director of the sequel's words about how he is drawing inspiration from as many as six other previous movies is a little counterproductive to your argument. Well, you do have a point there, but I believe there's a fine line between taking inspiration from things and bordering on remake. These films have styles and sensibilities that would be unique in the Star Wars narrative without feeling out of place, so, I guess, if anything, they'd be original in the Star Wars mythos. Point is, though. These films were character-centric and, at least, pretty good, so, if there's any chance that their more favorable elements could find their way into TLJ, then I'm all for it. Thanks for the response! I agree with that statement, however I think it has become a little too easy to just right things off as "a remake" of some previous movie. When two movies share some things, it doesn't automatically make the latter a ripoff. I’m also with you on Looper. That is one hell of a good sci-fi movie. I watched some of your review of Alien Covenant. I liked it. It's not without its flaws, but I did enjoy it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 19:48:03 GMT
Hmm. Bridge on the River Kwai is an interesting source of inspiration for a SW movie. (Also a truly fantastic movie). I'm intrigued.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 22:01:37 GMT
Well, you do have a point there, but I believe there's a fine line between taking inspiration from things and bordering on remake. These films have styles and sensibilities that would be unique in the Star Wars narrative without feeling out of place, so, I guess, if anything, they'd be original in the Star Wars mythos. Point is, though. These films were character-centric and, at least, pretty good, so, if there's any chance that their more favorable elements could find their way into TLJ, then I'm all for it. Thanks for the response!
I watched some of your review of Alien Covenant. I liked it. It's not without its flaws, but I did enjoy it. This. So much this. The haters need to learn the difference between homage and remake, or, in this case, ring technique and remake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 12:37:41 GMT
I agree with that statement, however I think it has become a little too easy to just right things off as "a remake" of some previous movie. When two movies share some things, it doesn't automatically make the latter a ripoff.I watched some of your review of Alien Covenant. I liked it. It's not without its flaws, but I did enjoy it. This. So much this. The haters need to learn the difference between homage and remake, or, in this case, ring technique and remake. TFA is da most rehashed major movie in cinematic history! This has already been proven by amateur critics, YouTubers and da rare professional critics not afraid of Disney. TFA lovers need to admit it instead of continuing to put up these elaborate arguments that prove to be counterfeit and are da greatest collection of alternative facts outside of politics. |
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 1,782
|
Post by shinnickneth on Jun 22, 2017 14:30:20 GMT
Yep, the one thing you need to worry about is Disney making sure the story isn't too good. They don't mind their other properties making great movies, but for some reason, they like to hold Star Wars back. Oh, come on now...don't exaggerate. Disney put a lot of money into a slowly dying (at the time) franchise in 2012. Of course they want their product to be good just like any other company. The only difference is that what you may find to be good, might be different than what Disney finds to be good. There's no conspiracy to make Star Wars bad. For any company to do that to the franchise would not be a good business strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jun 22, 2017 15:14:27 GMT
I agree with that statement, however I think it has become a little too easy to just right things off as "a remake" of some previous movie. When two movies share some things, it doesn't automatically make the latter a ripoff.I watched some of your review of Alien Covenant. I liked it. It's not without its flaws, but I did enjoy it. This. So much this. The haters need to learn the difference between homage and remake, or, in this case, ring technique and remake. Well for starters, I think they help each of them are from that bizarre group who are blindly loyal to Lucas and hate anything he's not involved with. Aside from that, you're absolutely right. An homage is a completely separate thing that a remake or ripoff. Oh, both movies have light sabers and giant super weapons? Such a ripoff! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 16:32:35 GMT
This. So much this. The haters need to learn the difference between homage and remake, or, in this case, ring technique and remake. Well for starters, I think they help each of them are from that bizarre group who are blindly loyal to Lucas and hate anything he's not involved with. Aside from that, you're absolutely right. An homage is a completely separate thing that a remake or ripoff. Oh, both movies have light sabers and giant super weapons? Such a ripoff! They didn't seem to mind that the PT featured another hero from the dessert with ultra-mega-stupendous Force potential, or that Amidala was fashioned to echo Leia, or that Qui Gon/Kenobi was homage to Kenobi/Luke, or that catch phrases were repeated to pay homage to the OT, or that another non-human/rustic tribe came out of nowhere to distract the bad buy army whilst our featured heroes infiltrated a stronghold as a small group, or that the main hero isn't trusted by Jedi establishment, or that there's anther cyborg villain, or that our heroes scrimmaged against slobber-toothed monsters again in front of a mocking audience or that the most prevalent, overt villain was another fallen Jedi, or that our hero got his hand chopped off, etc. Beat for beat, TESB and ROTJ paid homage to ANH, and in more obvious fashion, the PT paid homage to the OT. Everybody should understand this by now or they don't belong on a SW board. The real truth is that the new creative team features some feminists and liberals. That's actually true. Conservative anti-feminists smell a rat. Is Rey a female badass who embarrasses the bumbling Finn at times? Yes. Is there contrived diversity in the film and will this continue as a trend in future films? Yes. And is this some liberal agenda? Yes, kind of. Liberals are going to make films with some liberal themes. The few conservative filmmakers out there will make their films with more conservative themes. SO?!?!? As a hardcore conservative, I don't appreciate contrived diversity and I loathe feminism. Pushing that aside, Rey is a more interesting character than Luke or Anakin (considering only what we saw in the seven episodic films...when we go to novels and supplemental material, this opinion would definitely shift) and Daisy turned in a MUCH BETTER acting performance than Lloyd, Christensen or Hamill. Most of this nit-picking of TFA is centered in that and most of the rest is PT lovers who are unhappy that Disney wants to supposedly put distance between the franchise and midi-chlorians. |
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jun 22, 2017 17:57:28 GMT
|
|
Surly
Sophomore
@surly
Posts: 913
Likes: 784
|
Post by Surly on Jun 22, 2017 18:42:39 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 18:58:55 GMT
Hi Waxer, you want my subjective opinion? You have poor taste. You want my subject opinion once more?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 19:07:30 GMT
Well for starters, I think they help each of them are from that bizarre group who are blindly loyal to Lucas and hate anything he's not involved with. Aside from that, you're absolutely right. An homage is a completely separate thing that a remake or ripoff. Oh, both movies have light sabers and giant super weapons? Such a ripoff! They didn't seem to mind that the PT featured another hero from the dessert with ultra-mega-stupendous Force potential, or that Amidala was fashioned to echo Leia, or that Qui Gon/Kenobi was homage to Kenobi/Luke, or that catch phrases were repeated to pay homage to the OT, or that another non-human/rustic tribe came out of nowhere to distract the bad buy army whilst our featured heroes infiltrated a stronghold as a small group, or that the main hero isn't trusted by Jedi establishment, or that there's anther cyborg villain, or that our heroes scrimmaged against slobber-toothed monsters again in front of a mocking audience or that the most prevalent, overt villain was another fallen Jedi, or that our hero got his hand chopped off, etc. Beat for beat, TESB and ROTJ paid homage to ANH, and in more obvious fashion, the PT paid homage to the OT. Everybody should understand this by now or they don't belong on a SW board. The real truth is that the new creative team features some feminists and liberals. That's actually true. Conservative anti-feminists smell a rat. Is Rey a female badass who embarrasses the bumbling Finn at times? Yes. Is there contrived diversity in the film and will this continue as a trend in future films? Yes. And is this some liberal agenda? Yes, kind of. Liberals are going to make films with some liberal themes. The few conservative filmmakers out there will make their films with more conservative themes. SO?!?!? As a hardcore conservative, I don't appreciate contrived diversity and I loathe feminism. Pushing that aside, Rey is a more interesting character than Luke or Anakin (considering only what we saw in the seven episodic films...when we go to novels and supplemental material, this opinion would definitely shift) and Daisy turned in a MUCH BETTER acting performance than Lloyd, Christensen or Hamill. Most of this nit-picking of TFA is centered in that and most of the rest is PT lovers who are unhappy that Disney wants to supposedly put distance between the franchise and midi-chlorians.Nobody cares about the Midichlorians being a theme in SW anymore. Not even prequel fans. Yeah that must be the reason. Suuuuuuuure. |
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jun 22, 2017 19:14:48 GMT
Hi Waxer, you want my subjective opinion? You have poor taste. You want my subject opinion once more? Thank you. Considering your blind worship of TFA and it's impact on your overall poor taste in SW, I take that as a compliment. |
|
