No the interrogation of Poe happened before the Nima Outpost sequence because Poe and Fin have already escaped.
Am I REALLY the only one disappointed with TFA?
- Thread starter sithman66
- Start date
No the interrogation of Poe happened before the Nima Outpost sequence because Poe and Fin have already escaped.
But knowing what they're looking for, and it's importance, seems unlikely the would let anyone on the planet know about it when they can just go down and look for it themselves.
I figured once Rey and Fin escaped, THEN they let it known what they were looking for.
We don't know that Untar is a bad guy yet... (at least I don't... it may have been in the comics for all I know)... Sounds like Rey is familiar with the work on the Falcon, so she likely knows him on some level other than just the guy who buys her scrap.
I figured once Rey and Fin escaped, THEN they let it known what they were looking for.
We don't know that Untar is a bad guy yet... (at least I don't... it may have been in the comics for all I know)... Sounds like Rey is familiar with the work on the Falcon, so she likely knows him on some level other than just the guy who buys her scrap.
You guys are spending too much time focusing on Rey. She wasn't the problem with the movie, as far as I'm concerned. I actually liked the new characters. However I'll just say that I tend to believe how some of the books said that Luke may have had instances where he used the Force without recognizing it. I'm not talking about levitating things or the showier aspects, but maybe Force warnings or something. The same way Anakin was in flying (driving?) the podracer. I'm guessing the same would have happened to Rey. That might be why she survived so well.
That's in some of the new books.
Solo4114
Master Member
Not in ANH, he didn't. In ANH, his biggest flaws were that he was, um...whiny? And arguably that he had his head in the clouds and was looking for adventure. (Which, contrary to what some have said here, he initially declines because he has work to do, the Empire's such a long way from Tatooine, blah blah blah.)
Also, lust? Really? Other than the "I care" scene on the Falcon, or finding Leia beautiful, I can't think of anything remotely "lustful" and neither of those is particularly lustful as it is. A lot on your list there seems to be quite a stretch.
But hey, you could find plenty of flaws with Rey in that respect, too, if you're willing to go mining for snippits of dialogue as proof of this or that.
Bottom line, they're equally "Mary Sue" and/or equally flawed in their first appearance. Luke's character significantly deepens in ESB -- which is where his real flaws are highlighted -- and again in ROTJ where he overcomes most of his flaws.
But in the first movie? No different from Rey, outside of Rey's technical competence, all of which can be attributed to the Force, and all of which is intentionally made to appear to be a mystery which will be revealed later. I expect we'll see a similar development from Rey over the course of the next two films, both in terms of her flaws, and in terms of some explanation for her extraordinary power. But let's not pretend that Luke wasn't ALSO extraordinarily powerful. We just saw fewer instances of it.
Yeah, I think that, while it was sort of retroactively added to the continuity, the implication is that the Jedi Order was not going to rise anew exactly as it had before.
Although, for all we know, Luke did try to do it that way initially, and that's partially what led to its failure. We'll find out later.
I agree with this. But it's also worth considering their wildly different upbringings. From what little we know, Luke just led the life of a plain ol' farm boy, playing with his friends, racing his hotrod through Beggar's Canyon and bullseying womprats. He was mostly frustrated at how cloistered his existence was. And he didn't really have any reason to learn to be tough or a badass at fighting.
Rey, on the other hand, basically grew up in a place like Mos Eisley, fighting to survive, and eking out a meager existence as a scavenger. Rey had to be tough and resourceful, independent, strong willed, and a fighter. So, it wouldn't surprise me that Rey's Force abilities are further honed simply by virtue of the fact that she was instinctively using them from the get-go. The junktown where she lived on Jakku was basically a crucible for her. One of many I expect she'll have to fight through, too.
No, he didn't, because she isn't Luke's daughter. I'm very much leaning away from that fan theory. And that has nothing to do with what I thought we were discussing.
Yeah, I think they might still do it, but I think it's just as likely that she's (A) a Solo, (B) a Kenobi, or (C) a player to be named later. A nobody whose power manifests out of left field.
One last point on this whole "Mary Sue" brouhaha. At least to my way of thinking, a "Mary Sue" typically is brilliant, talented, and unflawed AND is presented in such a way that the other characters either accord the Mary Sue with otherwise undeserved authority/power, or think nothing of the Mary Sue's amazing competence.
In TFA, on multiple occasions, the characters around Rey are just as blown away by her abilities as the audience, and one gets the suspicion that Rey herself is equally surprised. She doesn't fully understand why she's as powerful as she is, and nobody else around her does, either. That cuts against her being a Mary Sue. If she were a Mary Sue, they'd probably jsut be like "Ah ha! The Chosen One has arrived! Please, take command of our entire battle fleet. We'll all defer to your sound judgment, o Great Leader." Or they'd be like "Well, of course she's so powerful. She's the Chosen One!"
We're going around in circles, so...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=238kiM8AOLs
On another subject, this is something I'd posted previously in this thread, but no one replied. So here again is my question.
Does anybody know what scene they were filming when Harrison got hurt on set? Has it been confirmed it was a door on the Millennium Falcon?
Any intel on this would be appreciated. I saw the movie twice and I don't recall an obvious scene in which it looked like it could've happened. But then again, there was a lot goin' on in the movie, and I could've very easily missed it.
Thanks!
The Wook
I don't think so. All the reports at the time were that it was the Millennium Falcon. Including Calista Flockhart's account of the incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cnz5IbyCDk
The Wook
I'm just thinking the immediate news may have been that he was injured by a door on the set of his ship which could have been the freighter, not the Falcon, but people who weren't there sort of assumed it was. Then it becomes a story and no one really bothers or cares to correct the set location. Now that there is a lawsuit I am sure there will be a lot more detail coming out.
Plus, saying it was the Millennium Falcon makes for such a better story, than someone unknown freighter.
It'll be interesting to see what details come out with the lawsuit.
Thanks,
The Wook
And I suppose covers up a potential story spoiler!
Zombie_61
Master Member
Bingo. The news of Ford's injury broke not long after they started filming, so they told the press that it was the Millennium Falcon set because most people already knew the Falcon was in the movie. The actual location of the accident will surely be part of the lawsuit, but whether or not that information will be made public remains to be seen.
gonk27
Sr Member
Well Ford does seem to confirm the location of the accident himself on Jimmy Kimmel... then again, he is dressed as a hotdog.
https://youtu.be/io_oZrzVlRs?t=75
Last edited by a moderator:
still prior to release.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bryancd, I posted this four days ago. You must've missed it, pal, 'cuz you never replied. Either that, or your reticence is a tacit admission that I am right. In which case, I accept your apology.
The Wook
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait, when became taking down Avatar and Titanic the filmmakers agenda?!
Shirley, you can't be serious.
There's no doubt Disney had Avatar's global record in its sights. Even if they never acknowledged it publicly.
The Wook
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
* My Analysis - The reason TFA was doomed to failure in its quest to surpass Avatar worldwide, is because bad word-of-mouth about the film started catching up to TFA by week 3, and caused that precipitous drop-off...a level of drop-off that did not plague Avatar or Titanic, so early in their respective runs. There are other reasons TFA failed to reach Avatar's performance stratosphere, such as TFA's under-performance in certain international markets. But it was the narrative in the U.S. and around the world that had developed by Week 3, that the film was nothing special, which doomed TFA in its pursuit of Avatar globally. The film was just not getting enough repeat visits to track the way Titanic and Avatar did. Throw in the people who decided not to see it at all in the theater after hearing from their neighbor or around the water cooler at work that the film was meh, or worse, and there was no way TFA could compete with Avatar's global haul.
* My Opinion - Y'all know I didn't care for TFA. I won't rehash my criticisms. But some of you said you were confused because I was saying TFA didn't have the legs of Avatar and Titanic, and the reason was because it was bad. That is true, that's what I said. But then you were confused when I said that I didn't like Avatar or Titanic, either. Well, that's true, too. I didn't really like those films. Titanic was much better than Avatar, but still, it's not my cup of tea--what with that sappy romance between Leo and Kate. Loved the effects, though. But I digress. My opinion is that if TFA was a truly great movie, if Disney had given us something special and memorable, then the film would've had legs like Titanic and Avatar, it would've performed better abroad, and it might've knocked Avatar from it's perch worldwide. Maybe. It was it's only chance to do so. But lamentably, the film was weak. And once word got out, after an initial fortnight dominated almost exclusively by effusive praise, The Force Awakens' fate was sealed, to be an also-ran.
@Bryancd, I posted this four days ago. You must've missed it, pal, 'cuz you never replied. Either that, or your reticence is a tacit admission that I am right. In which case, I accept your apology.
The Wook
I can't, and won't, speak for Bryan.
From my perspective:
I don't dispute your facts.
I do, however, dispute your analysis. TFA didn't have "bad word of mouth." It had some fans of the older films who weren't as impressed with it. TFA also didn't have the length of release that Avatar did, nor has it yet had a re-release the way Avatar did. If it has a re-release just before or to coincide with the release of Ep.VIII, I think it could very well beat Titanic, and maybe Avatar. Maybe not, however.
I think your opinion -- which you've made abundantly clear (specifically that you didn't care for TFA) has clouded your analysis and led you to focus on certain issues that the movie is bad, a failure, or -- in your own words -- nothing special.
Subjectively speaking, I can't dispute that. That's what you think, it's your opinion, and as you've said, you didn't care for it.
Objectively speaking, you're just wrong.
TFA is absolutely something special. It's the film that has relaunched what is likely to be a multibillion dollar multimedia franchise. It was warmly received by the majority of critics. It did PHENOMENALLY WELL at the box office. Was it literally the highest grossing movie ever? Nope. It is, however, the #1 domestic grossing film of all time, beating Avatar and Titanic both, by nearly $200 million. It's the third all time highest grossing film in the world. It has been a massive financial success, has a wide variety of fans, has been a major boon to Disney, and is likely to continue to as a successful franchise down the road.
That makes it special.
It's also constructed in a way that is designed to be far more consciously inclusive than any of the films that preceded it, which means way more people have someone they can look to as "their" hero. Way more people can look up on the screen and say "Yeah...that could be me!"
That makes it special, too.
You don't care for the film? Super. But you just look silly when you try to paint it as a failure on anything other than a "Failed to entertain li'l ol' me" level.
Come on, man. It's fine to just...not like the movie. Isn't that enough? You don't need to validate it with some cockamamie theory about how the film is a failure. The film failed to entertain you, while succeeding wildly on a financial and critical level. That's valid enough, no?
@The Wook, I saw it but it's more of the narrative you have decided is reality when it's not. Let me be clear, my job is to do analysis about companies and their products performance. Nothing about my feeling regarding the financial performance of TFA is predicated on my fandom, it's based on my experience of doing this since 1997. Most Wall Sreet analysts had modeled TFA to earn $1.9B. I thought that was low and felt they could earn more then Titantic, which they will over the next few years with rereleases of the film. No one at Disney thought they would reach $2.7B. I do get the impression they felt $1.5-$2B would be a major success.
Regarding your attempt to qualify the box office trajectory, all of you "points" are not factual. It's filled with supposition and assumptions not based on what actually happened. You try and use online blogs as proof of point when they demonstrate nothing. The reality was the film opened on 4000+ screens, the weekly change in audience numbers can't be compared to a film that may have opened on half that number. The mathematics are entirely different. The general audience word of mouth was exceedingly positive as indicated by audience reaction and opinions of the film as qualified by all the major film tracking services. It wasn't bad word of mouth, it was a film release front end loaded to get as many people to see it in the first 3 weeks by function of the number of screens.
I've explained this before, I'm not interested in convincing you, that meaningless to me at this point.
Regarding your attempt to qualify the box office trajectory, all of you "points" are not factual. It's filled with supposition and assumptions not based on what actually happened. You try and use online blogs as proof of point when they demonstrate nothing. The reality was the film opened on 4000+ screens, the weekly change in audience numbers can't be compared to a film that may have opened on half that number. The mathematics are entirely different. The general audience word of mouth was exceedingly positive as indicated by audience reaction and opinions of the film as qualified by all the major film tracking services. It wasn't bad word of mouth, it was a film release front end loaded to get as many people to see it in the first 3 weeks by function of the number of screens.
I've explained this before, I'm not interested in convincing you, that meaningless to me at this point.
Last edited:
Similar threads
