Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Pre-release)

The RPF is getting a little too one minded lately as far as SW discussions. It's the definition of groupthink. There's plenty of room for people to disagree. You're allowed not to like any of the new movies you want, for whatever reason. Now if anyone wants to start a Disney Fanboy thread that's just for gushing on the new trilogy anyone is totally free to do that and not have to hear anything bad about those movies.
 
Its kinda got funny in a way. You get chastised for loving them and equally chastised for hating them. As long as we realise that it's just opinion and both are important I think we can move forward. The problem comes when people use their opinion and state it as fact when clearly statistics show the opposite.

Ben
 
Its kinda got funny in a way. You get chastised for loving them and equally chastised for hating them. As long as we realise that it's just opinion and both are important I think we can move forward. The problem comes when people use their opinion and state it as fact when clearly statistics show the opposite.

Ben

Well said.
 
The RPF is getting a little too one minded lately as far as SW discussions. It's the definition of groupthink. There's plenty of room for people to disagree. You're allowed not to like any of the new movies you want, for whatever reason. Now if anyone wants to start a Disney Fanboy thread that's just for gushing on the new trilogy anyone is totally free to do that and not have to hear anything bad about those movies.

I don't mind if you love 'em. you're allowed to. I don't mind reading the positive stuff either. it's nice to see people enjoying things.

I just find that the one sided ness of 'everything's awesome' around here is sometimes a bit goofy ;o).
And if you try to start a thread saying 'everyone who hates this movie, join in!', it'll get locked instantly. the supposedly tolerant folks seem to get intolerant of the 'intolerant' folks far faster these days :)
 
Yeah, except TFA and R1 were great films by all metrics, so I say sheep are people who just don't get it.

Good metrics doesn't necessarily mean "good movie". Hamill spoke at length about that. TFA was decent for a remake. R1 was decent, but weighed down by poor editing choices and some flat characters. Still, not bad. I'd argue that the sheep are the ones who fuel great metrics for crap movies. The rest of us recognize we're being served ground chuck when it could've been Kobe.
 
Good metrics doesn't necessarily mean "good movie". Hamill spoke at length about that. TFA was decent for a remake. R1 was decent, but weighed down by poor editing choices and some flat characters. Still, not bad. I'd argue that the sheep are the ones who fuel great metrics for crap movies. The rest of us recognize we're being served ground chuck when it could've been Kobe.
I watched a great video on George Lucas and the prequels. The video said that often special effects, acting and dialogue are like icing and toppings of a cake. They are often the things you notice first, and people often judge the cake by them. But it's really the cake that matters the most.

As examples, he said that aliens has some pretty bad dialogue and performances, but it's still considered a masterpiece. Whereas the amazing Spider-Man 2 has great dialogue and acting from Garfield and stone, but is considered a disaster.


Then he went to on to discuss how much craft went into the pod racing scene in a movie that no one likes. For me, I get that. I'm a prequel apologist because I can see the craft that went into them. They aren't just noise and mayhem. There is actually good direction.

Whereas I have heard JJ Abrams say that he doesn't storyboard action scenes. He just films a bunch from different angles and makes the story in editing. To me, that's incredibly obvious and actually arrogant. Especially considering that he was trying to take the mantle from Lucas.

"This will begin to set things right"

Suuuuuuure it will

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
It's pronounced Ryan as said multiple times at Celebration Orlando. How you got arrogant or even bordering it out of those responses is beyond me.

He is kind of a snarky *******. I kind of think he is borderline arrogant. But hey, if his movie is great, and he makes sure everyone knows it, thats cool then. The worst is when someone talks smack but then backs it up. :lol

Also, is his name pronounced "ryan" or "ree-ann"?
 
It seems like everyone (almost) is so afraid this movie will not be up to their expectations, that they are posting comments about the director and Disney just to be ready with the "I told you so" card if the movie goes in the toilet. If it is a huge hit critically; (not financially, which is almost a given) they will have to roll up their ITYS cards into suppositories and place them, carefully, where the sunlight never reaches. Then they will simply come up with semi-lame reasons, or pompous justifications why they were such haters before they ever saw the film. Or they'll just disappear in to the darkening shadows of troll caves all over the Star Wars world and hide until they can re-emerge to begin slamming episode 9.


Would you not consider TFA a big hit financially and critically? Wasn't the consensus mostly good? We're talking like 85-90 percent good overall. Millions of people post online, so even with 10 percent bad reviews you're going to get many thousands of people not liking it, or any movie at those percentages.
 
People can like or not like what they want. I just can't stand the people have the egos to think their opinion is objective scientific fact and the end-all-be-all. There are a few people in here like that without naming names. When you start calling people "sheep" or a variant of that, that's my issue. Even the originals didn't get unanimous praise (but it seemed like it at the time) & if there had been an internet at the time we'd have been exposed to more people who took issue with them. Sometimes films that were revered decades ago get somewhat of built-in immunity from most criticism if they had mostly good reviews then. There are a lot more people reviewing movies now than there were back then, and a lot more access to reviews.

Back then you just pretty much talked to your local friends & family about movies & saw an occasional review on TV or in a magazine/newspaper. Now with the internet you potentially can get exposed to millions of opinions & it's much easier to talk snarky to someone from behind the confines of a keyboard under a username than it would be in person, of course.
 
Whereas I have heard JJ Abrams say that he doesn't storyboard action scenes. He just films a bunch from different angles and makes the story in editing. To me, that's incredibly obvious and actually arrogant. Especially considering that he was trying to take the mantle from Lucas.

"This will begin to set things right"

Suuuuuuure it will

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I've done my own independent films before and as much as I go through with the storyboarding and the intent to use it, I have often turned to alternative stuff on-the-fly because the set had more to offer than what I drew for it. So its not a bad thing to not use the storyboards. Sure it is the blueprints in the Hollywood films that have outlined effects requirememts for a particular shot, but I'll bet there's plenty other filmmakers who end up scrapping storyboards.

I'm not nearly as great as the big names in Hollywood, i'm just giving input based on my own experiences in filmmaking that sometimes, or even often, you come up with something better once you get to the set and just use the storyboards as guidelines to make sure you get the right angles for the edit.
 
Back then you just pretty much talked to your local friends & family about movies & saw an occasional review on TV or in a magazine/newspaper. Now with the internet you potentially can get exposed to millions of opinions & it's much easier to talk snarky to someone from behind the confines of a keyboard under a username than it would be in person, of course.

or when you put someone on ignore and you don't see about 90% of the new snarky that comes out of said ignoree ;o)

I generally try not to use the sheep argument. or true fan nonsense. but if a person likes just about EVERYTHING that comes out of hollywood, no matter how bad...well, it won't stop me from thinking about the term, even if i don't say it. ;o)

there are ways to say you like something without being confrontational about it. but people get so emotional on both sides these days that this tends to get lost fast. The people who claim to be positive and supportive can be FAR nastier than the people who arn't.
 
LOL! By the way, Empire is a traditional middle act of a three act play, they always have the same structure of conflict.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4708.PNG
    IMG_4708.PNG
    525.3 KB · Views: 71
Being critical is fine as long as it's well considered and presented. Unfortunately, sometimes they are not and contain a healthy dusting of sexism or misogyny and come across as single, lonely, angry guy.

And, there it is. The old false argument that if you don't like something then it must mean that you're a racist, misogynist, sexist, kitten-killing neanderthal. It can't possibly be that a given work is utter crap. No. Not at all. It just means that the "brilliant" creative team behind the most recent failure are "victims" of bullying or sexism or any of a string of favored fall-back imagined offenses or "mico-aggressions" that they can become the standard bearer for instead of taking responsibility for producing detritus. After all, it's so much easier. Do the "Hollywood Victims" have jerseys, yet? They should. It's become their team sport. Haven't seen a drop of that in this thread aside from it being used by the Baghdad Bobs as the usual boring tactic to try and shut down dissent from the state-mandated group think. Can we at least invent new offenses to be victims of? "The sky is falling!" has been yelled out 1 million times too many, and people have called b.s.
 
And, there it is. The old false argument that if you don't like something then it must mean that you're a racist, misogynist, sexist, kitten-killing neanderthal. It can't possibly be that a given work is utter crap. No. Not at all. It just means that the "brilliant" creative team behind the most recent failure are "victims" of bullying or sexism or any of a string of favored fall-back imagined offenses or "mico-aggressions" that they can become the standard bearer for instead of taking responsibility for producing detritus. After all, it's so much easier. Do the "Hollywood Victims" have jerseys, yet? They should. It's become their team sport. Haven't seen a drop of that in this thread aside from it being used by the Baghdad Bobs as the usual boring tactic to try and shut down dissent from the state mandated group think. Can we at lest invent new offenses to be victims of? "The sky is falling!" has been yelled out 1 million times too many, and people have called b.s.

thank you. nice to see a few people around here get it.

and notice that snarky ness knowing they are on ignore ;o). proved my point for me perfectly. actually kind of made my morning ;o)

anytime i see misogny, or sexism, or any of the new buzz words people like to throw around to prove their point quickly and easily...smh.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top