Star Wars films have the worst titles, with the possible exception of The Empire Strikes Back, which may simply be bias since it's the only really good Star Wars film.

I'm still uneasy. They can easily find ways to screw this up and cast aside the long-time fans in favor of newer ones...

Quoted from Flying Ace:

I'm still uneasy. They can easily find ways to screw this up and cast aside the long-time fans in favor of newer ones...

Don't get too pessimistic. There is still hope.

[This message has been edited by Captain Keno (edited 01-24-2017 @ 08:34 PM).]

I'm still uneasy. They can easily find ways to screw this up and cast aside the long-time fans in favor of newer ones...

The Force Awakens was, in and of itself, pretty uninspired: it could either be a shaky foundation for a story better than itself or it could be the start of an utter disaster. If TLA isn't better than TFA, then I have little hope for Ep9.

You know... what is Star Wars? One analogy I heard recently might be unpleasantly accurate. Not helped by I was actually thinking this for a while before the Disney buyout...

"Fans think Star Wars is this deep ocean. It's got the width... but it's actually a puddle."

That seems fair. The OT actually did a good job of conveying a universe that felt bigger than what you saw on screen, but as the prequels, EU, and Lucas Licensing gave everyone and everything a backstory, made every character related, and tied every random extra into the bigger picture, the setting increasingly felt cramped and contrived--or at least that's my experience.

Agreed wholeheartedly, and the continuation of that is probably my biggest complaint against TFA.

But at least JJ Abrams won't be directing this one. Perhaps it'll be better.

He's still Executive Producer though...so he's still involved. Dammit.

Frankly I don't understand why they feel this need to have novels explain aspects of VII that SHOULD have been explained in the actual movie...I mean seriously?

That's like having to watch Kingsglaive so you know what the hell is going on in FFXV. Why do you need a damn movie to explain a video game that has more time to flesh out a story?

And if they're turning SW into more anti-conservative bullshit then I'm done. I watch Star Wars to get away from the political BS, not to deal with more of it.

Yeah, I'm getting rather annoyed with the "Ohh, this is all explained in the book! NOW RELEASED TO COMPANION WITH THE MOVIE! ONLY $39.99!" Like, why was Leia at Scarif?

Well, according to a recent asspull by Pablo Hidalgo, it's because her and Admiral Raddus were gonna go to Tatooine to pick up Obi-Wan, duh! And then they doubled back to fight at Scarif? Oh, and the Tantive IV was docked to the ship because... it was undergoing repairs on board! Yes! Perfect sense!

I mean... f**king really? I wrote about James Bond nailing Hawkgirl in front their Terminator bodyguards for several years and there were fewer plot holes and WTF moments. I do still feel bad about the Akulas, though Hell, I'm even planning to bring back the James Bond part... ironically, now it'll be Sarah Connor that tames his wayward... um... ways. But that's beside the point.

Also, God... people, Abrams is a fine director. Stop shitting on him for trying to save others' questionable writing and frequently succeeding! If he'd directed the prequels--with George's own screenplays, no less--at least "I don't like sand" would be eyerolling for the line, and not also the delivery. It might have almost worked. <_<

[This message has been edited by Moff Yittreas (edited 01-25-2017 @ 08:06 PM).]

I have to agree about Abrams: he seems to have a knack for taking bad scripts and good actors and making a movie that's entertaining but forgettable out of them.

Yeah, but when it comes to Star Wars... is forgettable worse than bad? I mean, people are still picking apart TPM and AotC, decades later.

I meant it as a compliment: Into Darkness, for example, is a plot trainwreck--but it's entertaining enough that you don't pick apart the plot while you're watching. The Force Awakens is a little better in the plot department (though the confusing and unexplained state of affairs does make you scratch your head occasionally), but you still wait until the movie is over to start picking it apart. Cf. TPM or AotC or any of the three Hobbit films where you just sit with resting "you've gotta be kidding me, my intelligence is being insulted" face.

My complaint against Abrams is that I think Star Trek Into Darkness had most of the same problems we dislike about TFA (but oh so much worse). I tend to assume it's something to do with him since they have no writing credits in common. Also, Abrams is listed as one of the three writers for TFA. But I guess it could all be a coincidence, and the movies could have been a lot worse without him.

Tbf, Into Darkness was leagues worse than either TFA or Star Trek (2009). But yeah, all of them have the hallmarks of similar design: flashy, fast-paced, shallow, but well enough acted that you wait until it's over to pick apart all of its serious issues. As Moff said, that's still an improvement over TPM and AotC.

I do have to wonder... how much of TFA is Kasdan and Abrams, and how was basically dictated to them?

Abrams is one of the most talented directors of his generation of filmmakers. What he lacks, unfortunately, is a story to tell. He's fantastic at using visual language to pull the audience into a given moment, a scenario, a circumstance; but is absolutely terrible at translating that ability into meaningful drama or resonance. I think a huge part of this comes from that fact that the man doesn't really have a unique perspective beyond "I loved movies growing up so I wanted to make them and now I get to do that!" As such, his films feel like really slickly directed pastiche or tribute rather than, you know, dramatically effective.

For what it's worth, I don't think there's a person in Hollywood who would have been a better choice for The Force Awakens -- Abrams, with all his flaws, delivered exactly what Disney and Lucasfilm needed the new Star Wars movie to be: an entertaining reintroduction to the style and feel of the original trilogy, with a new cast of characters that - though two-dimensional - are effortlessly likable. That's the perfect canvas on which Rian Johnson - a completely ****ing out there pick for Lucasfilm - to do his usual magic and create something offbeat, weird, and dramatically rich.

Speaking of characters, now that Finn is dead (*sigh* wishful thinking), can Maz take his place?

Xicon is our resident film expert; listen to him when he says "listen to Moff."

Yes it could have been worse than Abrams...It could have been Joss Whedon. Ending up with a forced romance between Rey and Poe DumbassDameron despite the fact they weren't (iirc) on screen together.

My biggest issue is TFA clearly could have been better (how about you use the title crawl to explain the state of the galaxy you morons), and certain characters portrayed better...I'm referring to just about the entire First Order. Didn't pay much attention to Finn (aside from the banter between him and Han), I was busy watching Rey be awesome and try to fight a force user with nothing but a pistol.

Kylo was such a whiny bitch, Episode 2 Anakin would tell him to chill. Seriously, I would rather watch that cringe-inducing portrayal of the guy who becomes Darth "Boarding Party" Vader than whatever the hell Ben the Bitch is supposed to be.

Yes it could have been worse than Abrams...It could have been Joss Whedon.

...Did you seriously just insult one of the best character writers in Hollywood short of Ronald D. Moore?

Abrams is one of the most talented directors of his generation of filmmakers. What he lacks, unfortunately, is a story to tell. He's fantastic at using visual language to pull the audience into a given moment, a scenario, a circumstance; but is absolutely terrible at translating that ability into meaningful drama or resonance. I think a huge part of this comes from that fact that the man doesn't really have a unique perspective beyond "I loved movies growing up so I wanted to make them and now I get to do that!" As such, his films feel like really slickly directed pastiche or tribute rather than, you know, dramatically effective.

I agree completely with all of that (well, I don't think I'm a sufficient film buff to have an opinion on which directer is most talented). I guess I'm not technically sophisticated enough to appreciate the strengths of Abram's films, and so I tend to see mainly the weaknesses. Though for what it's worth, I think Star Trek was very good.

[This message has been edited by Maegereg (edited 01-27-2017 @ 00:23 AM).]

I guess I'm not technically sophisticated enough to appreciate the strengths of Abram's films, and so I tend to see mainly the weaknesses. Though for what it's worth, I think Star Trek was very good.

I would argue, though, that what makes Abrams so talented is his ability to make that technical sophistication completely invisible. You get directors like Martin Scorsese - who is unarguably a better director than J.J. Abrams - who turn out these unbelievable accomplished films like Silence that turn out to be complete duds with audiences because their strength lies in this really high level understanding of film language. Even something like The Wolf of Wall Street, which is one of the best films Scorsese has ever made, comes across as light entertainment when the viewer isn't super well versed in cinematic convention. Scorsese is a brilliant technician, but almost all of the function he gains from that requires that the viewer be well versed in that technique.

Abrams, on the other hand, is really good as using sophisticated technique in a way that the audience can intuitively feel what he's doing. There's a reason Star Trek (2009) brought so many new fans into the fold of the series: for all of its dramatic issues, that movie feels astonishingly great, and the audience can just immediately pick up on and understand the character dynamics that exist between the crew of the Enterprise. There's no need for the audience to be able to parse complex visual language, as in a Scorsese film; they don't need to be able to think about the way a character is isolated within the frame, they can just intimately feel "this guy is lonely even though he's surrounded by people."

I once believed that audiences could intuit visual language on a visceral level if not an intellectual one. Now, I think that's not a guarantee; otherwise, the gap between the films loved by critics, film buffs, and filmmakers, and the films loved by the general audiences, would be a lot smaller. Instead, I now think that it's entirely up to the director to ensure that the audience can feel the visual language.

Abrams is nearly unmatched in his generation as far as that ability goes. He doesn't have the dramatic depths that Steven Spielberg has, but he's got the same understanding and command of visual language.

Kylo was such a whiny bitch, Episode 2 Anakin would tell him to chill.

Kylo Ren is what Lucas was trying to do with Anakin, but failed to do. He's a far more interesting character with a very clear dramatic conflict at his core, and he is by far the best addition to the Star Wars universe to come out of The Force Awakens. A lot of this credit belongs to Adam Driver, as well as Abrams and Kasdan, but the end result is still an absolute triumph of a villain character.

...Did you seriously just insult one of the best character writers in Hollywood short of Ronald D. Moore?

Love me some Joss Whedon. He should stick to TV. His style, his strengths, and his subject matter are far more suited to long-format storytelling than discrete two hour stories.

[This message has been edited by Xicon (edited 01-27-2017 @ 04:06 PM).]

The only Scorsese film I've seen is Hugo, but it is easily one of the most flawless, articulate films in my repertoire. Appropriate to its subject matter, it's a film that moves like clockwork--from acting to plot to cinematography, all flawless. I really, really want to see Silence, as it's been highly recommended by some people whose taste I trust.

Per Joss Whedon, I can believe that though I've never seen any of his TV work (I know, I know, I need to watch Firefly). I thought his style worked well for The Avengers, speaking as someone who dislikes the superhero genre and disliked the only two individual Avenger movies I watched (Iron Man and Thor): he very skillfully interwove a complex cast without making anyone feel left out (except, you know, Hawkeye, who was possessed by Loki for half the film). I can see how that would make him good for TV, though: cf. TNG (aka the Picard and Data show) or Voyager (aka the Janeway, Doctor, and Seven show).

Kylo Ren is what Lucas was trying to do with Anakin, but failed to do. He's a far more interesting character with a very clear dramatic conflict at his core, and he is by far the best addition to the Star Wars universe to come out of The Force Awakens. A lot of this credit belongs to Adam Driver, as well as Abrams and Kasdan, but the end result is still an absolute triumph of a villain character.

I would qualify that statement. Kylo Ren has potential to be all that, but I would qualify that most of what came across that way is a good actor successfully bluffing his way past some middling writing. Which, of course, is why Anakin comes across so much worse: give a middling actor bad lines and you get extremely painful scenes. I do hope that Kylo comes across with the complexity that TFA was hinting at in TLJ, and I hope Hux takes a walk out an airlock without a space suit.

A smart director would recognize the neat divide between Hux and Kylo as the divide between spiritualism and militarism, and do something neat with the contrast. Abrams giving them that semblance of animosity among allies was a step in that direction, but I'd like Johnson to take it and run with it. In large part because I like Domhnall Gleason a lot, and want him to stick around.

Also, Zaarin, you do need to watch Firefly, but also Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which seems really right up your alley in such a way that I am actually surprised you haven't seen it already.

I stand by what I said about Whedon. Firefly was good, but I can only imagine how bad it could have gotten the longer it went on. Angel and Buffy are examples of good ideas/stories becoming ridiculous after going on for too long. It's like the guy only does the first two parts of story telling and doesn't know when or how to bring in the third. And I STILL have no idea what the hell Dollhouse was supposed to be.

Yes Avengers was good. Kinda hard not to be when the plot is pretty much handed to you and you're a competent director (which I will say he is that). Once AoU came about...yeah you can't tell me that was a good movie.

But look on the bright side...I'm not blaming him for Agents of Shield

EDIT: Also...Yeah no, Kylo Ren is shit and needs to die. Horribly.

[This message has been edited by Flying Ace (edited 01-27-2017 @ 07:37 PM).]

Also, Zaarin, you do need to watch Firefly, but also Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which seems really right up your alley in such a way that I am actually surprised you haven't seen it already.

I have a friend who watched and enjoyed Buffy, so yeah, I probably should. The only thing I really know about it is that Armin Shimmerman had a recurring role on it at the same time he was playing Quark on DS9. Oh, and of course that it had a musical episode, which I totally wish had happened with DS9. Fun fact: Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore both wanted to do a musical episode of DS9; I forget if it was Rene Echevarria or Michael Pillar who nixed the idea. Personally, I would have loved it. It's not like you can't ad hoc a reason in Star Trek, and the entire cast had either good or at least acceptable voices (Avery Brooks and Rene Auberjonois both have backgrounds in music, Michael Dorn has a good voice; Colm Meany, Alexander Siddig, and Terry Ferrell all have decent voices; Armin Shimmerman and Cirroc Lofton are the only ones I can't say I've heard sing--and if the episode took place in season 6, we could even throw in Vic Fontaine! It would have been great!

Once AoU came about...yeah you can't tell me that was a good movie.

It wasn't as good as the first, but it was decent.

The forced romance sub-plot between Natasha and Bruce? Thor being okay with leaving Loki's staff with Tony to play around with after the Tesseract debacle? One of the most threatening Marvel villains feeling more like a footnote than a major threat*?

I could go on, but I don't wanna

*Part of this is just me preferring they held off on Ultron until a later phase when they had more heroes to work with. Since Ultron was such a big deal in the comics.

Let us not forget that Joss Whedon wrote the script for Alien: Resurrection, which was an awful movie.

Let us not forget that Joss Whedon also wrote the script for Titan A.E., which was a phenomenal movie.

Quoted from Zaarin:

Let us not forget that Joss Whedon also wrote the script for Titan A.E., which was a phenomenal movie.

Not exactly... Titan A.E. received a mixed response from critics, with a 48 out of 100 score from Metacritic, and 52% approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes based on 99 reviews with the consensus "Great visuals, but the story feels like a cut-and-paste job of other sci-fi movies."

But it's not a bad science fiction film. It does still retain a cult following though.

[This message has been edited by Captain Keno (edited 01-28-2017 @ 05:27 PM).]