Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (Post-release)

What did you think of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker?


  • Total voters
    415
Trolling. I forgot about that one The easiest and more basic argument when you have a hard time with someone elses opinion. Thanks for reminding me. Crusade? LOL! Oh, please. Can you be more overly dramatic?

You and your crowd argument: Movie is a flop. Disney is surely going to loose money. More people will hate it, more than TLJ?

Reality: A big nope. Thats why you so mad?
 
In other news, McDonald's has sold billions of burgers, that must mean it's a great product! :lol:

Very true......so what does that mean for these ones?(playing Devils advocate...sort of)

0rsqjm4vyrw01.jpg

And that ain't even all of them.....
 
One thing that I think some people here keep forgetting (and so why it's hard for them to grasp your point) is that Star Wars was never made for fanboys.

Lucas didn't slavishly adhere to the Joseph Campbell "hero's journey" school of thought in order to appeal to a small section of ultra-enthusiastic, highly opinionated audience members. He stuck to that narrative for MASS APPEAL. He wanted to tell a story that was available and understandable to the widest possible audience.

That has been the ethos of Star Wars all along. The movies are made to appeal to a general audience, not the loudest dissenters in fan forums.

And the box office numbers reflect that. General audiences did not hate The Last Jedi and are not hating this film in the way that those loud voices wish they were.

Fanboys been the key word here. Not only that.....you know what Lucas wanted? To sell merchandise folks! Yes, he behaved like a BIG corporation. But you were kiddies at the time. You didnt saw it like that. You were awe struck, yet some of us, thank God the majority, grew up. We understand. Its a movie to enjoy and have a good time. Never meant to be a life changing event. And you will never feel the same as when you were a kid. My kids grew up with these PT, and I see in their eyes the same starry eyed stare I did when the OT.

And you are right the majority didnt hate new Star Wars. Thats where my silent majority argument kicks in.
 
your peers
I don’t really have both feet in the “replica propmaker” camp. I like a lot about it, and I like making props, but it’s only as an accessory to telling stories through film, which is what I am most interested in, and studying. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t highly regard most people’s opinions on the quality of stories or storytelling. I really hate pulling the “you can only criticize something if you’re a professional in that field” card, because I think it’s a terrible argument, but the time that I’ve put into researching storytelling through filmmaking is what I’m bringing to the table for the sake of this argument, as my credibility, so to speak. I frequent this forum to see a few neat things other people have made, occasionally get some feedback on original/custom props, and apparently, to send you into vitriolic fits of rage. No one has ever said you shouldn’t/can’t/don’t enjoy anything. It’s when you continue to claim that TROS is anything more than a nostalgia delivery system rather than a film, and that your own or others’ personal enjoyment therefore makes it a good film. You haven’t really made any arguments as to why the film is great. Tell us how Rey’s journey as a character is reflected through the trials she faces and either overcomes or fails throughout the film, and how that journey relates to our struggle through life as we all continue on our own journeys.Tell us how the many side plots and newly introduced toys—I’m sorry, characters—contributed in a meaningful way to the overarching themes of the movie and trilogy rather than just function as set pieces or exposition. Tell us exactly how having a hundred thousand Star Destroyers hovering above Egg-sicle, each equipped with more firepower than the original Death Star, is a reasonable escalation of the stakes of the plot, while still being toned down enough not to break the suspension of disbelief or rob the previous films of stakes, tension, or triumph. How did JJ Abrams use shot composition and lighting to better tell his story? How did the script function both as an expository device and as realistic dialogue and interaction between realistic and human characters? I for one can say that the only things IX did for me came from Adam Driver and Daisy Ridley, who were trying their absolute hardest with what they’ve been given. Everything else felt like cheap emotional manipulation in order to garner a positive reaction from general audiences so that the $4 billion plus investment Disney has made into this franchise won’t die with the fifth movie in. Can you tell us any of these things? Can you express in calm and not openly aggressive language why TROS succeeds on its own, due to its own merits? If so, then you are valid in telling us to eff off when we say that there wasn’t anything of substance in the film. If you can’t, and won’t concede that, while not good, it entertained you, then I’m sorry. You’re an apologist by definition, and you’re still clinging to the flimsiest excuse of all. “There are so many other apologists, so that means it must be good!” All that means is that they were entertained. Some people simply have lower expectations for their entertainment (which I have never equated with “unintelligence” or anything like that) and ultimately that’s just fine. It’s not that important in the long run when you consider what’s really important in this world. But for those who do have higher expectations, and not just from a nostalgia, fanboy standpoint, but in the hopes that these films manage to push past small problems into truly timeless films, we want better. We know it’s possible. Unfortunately for us, those with lower expectations keep voting with their wallets, which is why we’re getting Aladdin (2019) and The Lion King (2019) and six Avatar sequels and Maleficent 2. Studios don’t have to take risks or involve passion; they can just factory produce products that steal imagery from much better films and manipulate nostalgia into convincing the viewer that the product is good.

Take a page out of some of the other apologist’s books, keep it civil, and leave the trolling for 4chan and Reddit. I don’t dislike you because you liked a movie—I dislike you because of how aggressive and rude you are.
 
Ahh yes, the only metric by which films are judged in terms of quality, the audience reaction…that means this film here is good, right?View attachment 1096223
Oh wait, that’s Transformers 1…
View attachment 1096224
While entertainment value is indeed a part of whether or not a film is considered “good” or “successful”, it’s also the most subjective, and general audiences of general audience films are the least discerning when it comes to quality. It’s mob mentality. It’s what makes a lot of live performances. It’s the environment and audience with which it is viewed, and each individual viewer’s ability to detach from the mob and analyze their own reaction to a film. That’s what made the OT special—they were the really the first big blockbusters, but appealing to a general audience didn’t mean stuff was just happening all over the place, like someone dangling keys in front of a cat or baby. They may not be “Citizen Kane”, as someone pretentiously made reference to as if it were the pinnacle of cinema, but it’s long-lasting appeal has proven to be through the quality of the films and not due to nostalgia, or just special effects, or by pop-culture prevalence, by the simple fact that many people who weren’t even alive when any of the OT were released love the films.
Playing Devils advocate again....sort of....

Screenshot_20191228-123052.png
 
You and I have always butted heads on the ST but you always manage to bring thoughtful, articulate points to support your perspective. Even if I ultimately disagree with you I always appreciate your desire to try and offer a different view without vitriol. I truly appreciate that!
 
You and I have always butted heads on the ST but you always manage to bring thoughtful, articulate points to support your perspective. Even if I ultimately disagree with you I always appreciate your desire to try and offer a different view without vitriol. I truly appreciate that!
I agree entirely. Difference of opinion aside, Joek3rr always keeps it civil like it should be.
 
I'm not sure I get your point bro. :unsure:

Really just showing how you can't really depend on what critics say or the audience. Transformers gets a high audience score, but a low critic. TROS is similar. But TLJ is the other way around. So you really can't point to one score or another and say 'see that means it's a bad film!'
 
No one has ever said you shouldn’t/can’t/don’t enjoy anything. It’s when you continue to claim that TROS is anything more than a nostalgia delivery system rather than a film, and that your own or others’ personal enjoyment therefore makes it a good film.

Part of the problem is the insistence that if there isn't some deeper meaning, then it must be be bad.

The original trilogy wasn't created as high art. It was created as good adventure serials that reminded Lucas of his beloved Flash Gordon. Deeper meaning to the story has been retroactively applied to the films throughout the years.

"Nostalgia delivery" also isn't inherently a bad thing. "The Toys That Made Us" isn't a hugely popular Netflix show because of it's important place in recording historical significance. It's popular because it heavily triggers nostalgia.

Having said that, there are absolutely flaws in the storytelling of the new films. There were flaws in the original, and in the prequels. Some more glaring than others. But I would argue that nostalgia is not necessarily one of those flaws. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue (in my opinion) that the sequel trilogy handled introducing nostalgia much better than the prequels did. And if we're insisting on deeper meaning, I'd further argue that, agree with the character decisions or not, the sequel trilogy does a better job of crafting arcs for *all* three main characters across three films than the original trilogy did.

"Good" is highly subjective, and personal enjoyment is as valid a metric to judge by as any sort of deeper understanding of subtext and meaning. What we are talking about here is POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT. Entertainment meant for a worldwide audience, which by very definition excludes the pretentious "you must be an expert" argument. That isn't to say that no one should discuss deeper context of story and structure, but rather that dismissing the notion of enjoyment "because you don't understand," or because enjoyment was derived from the spectacle, is both elitist and against the entire point of the films.

The purpose of Star Wars has been and always will be "to entertain." Like the tree/cave on Dagobah, anything else, you bring with you.
 
Really just showing how you can't really depend on what critics say or the audience. Transformers gets a high audience score, but a low critic. TROS is similar. But TLJ is the other way around. So you really can't point to one score or another and say 'see that means it's a bad film!'

Since people's opinions of a film, Great/Good/Meh/Awful, is all subjective, there is no 'right' answer. They're just opinions.
 
Really just showing how you can't really depend on what critics say or the audience. Transformers gets a high audience score, but a low critic. TROS is similar. But TLJ is the other way around. So you really can't point to one score or another and say 'see that means it's a bad film!'
That’s entirely the point I was making. I think TLJ was good, and it was a great theater experience for me. Critics who viewed the film objectively as a story being told rather than a “franchise popcorn blockbuster Star Wars film” tend to agree, although the film’s real flaws come from the fact that it doesn’t work as a bridge movie in a trilogy. And TFA grew on me after about a year. I’m by no means a diehard “DSW hater”. I just want them to put the effort and passion really all films deserve, but especially the films that I want to care about.
 
Since people's opinions of a film, Great/Good/Meh/Awful, is all subjective, there is no 'right' answer. They're just opinions.

Well you know one man's trash is another man's treasure. One person may hate one film, but another may love it. I mean just look at TLJ, it ranks as some best Star Wars film, and other their worst.
 
Well you know one man's trash is another man's treasure. One person may hate one film, but another may love it. I mean just look at TLJ, it ranks as some best Star Wars film, and other their worst.

Yep. In the MST3K fandom it has become know as Sampo's Theorem: For every episode that someone says it was the worst of all time, another person will have it on their best list.
 
The original trilogy wasn't created as high art.
There’s a big difference between not being so-called “high-art” and just not being art at all. TFA was a love letter to Star Wars. Not inventive, but an attempt to honor the OT. TROS is a simple cash-grab. It reminds me of something RLM said in their Half in the Bag on Justice League, I think. If people just want to see people fight (or in this case, fly X-Wings and duel and force push and whatnot), why should the studio even try at all with the overly long films with barely an attempt at story? They could save on the budget and make a forty minute video of just “cool costumes” fighting other “cool costumes” while holding “cool weapons”. If the general audience is totally placated by seeing things they recognize and watching people fight, then why don’t they just watch fan films that do just that, and skip the story stuff entirely? Film is not just a place for spectacle. We are capable of producing so much more. And I’ll say it again—if the OT “isn’t that good”, and it’s just “nostalgia and spectacle”, why aren’t I nostalgic for the PT? I wasn’t alive when the OT came out, and I grew up right in the primary demographic for the PT. At the time, I liked them a lot. My least favorite out of the saga was Empire. Now the situation has totally flipped. I recognize the PT as really poorly made movies, and Empire is my favorite SW film, and one of my favorite films of all time. But no, it must be because I’m giving it a pass, and that I’m just “remembering it better than it is”, right? Just because it doesn’t tell the story of William Randolph Hearst, or adapt a Stephen King novel, or tell the millionth story about the mafia, its not art, right? Because art has to be gritty and miserable, isn’t that right? High art can only deal with miserable people doing miserable things, or be representative of some big huge enormous issue, as we all know. So let’s just pack up everybody; all of our criticisms on this movie are invalid because the first movies in this franchise “weren’t that good” and “aren’t high art”, so they can’t be analyzed or criticized. I guess we should leave this thread for those that just crunched down on popcorn and turned their brains off for two and a half hours, because that’s all these kinds of films are good for. In fact, why don’t we just shut down this whole site—most movies that have props and costumes to replicate aren’t “high art”, so they aren’t worth putting too much effort into.
 
What I dislike is the constant patronizing, belittling of others. I react to that and I am tired of that arrogant attitude. If Joker or anyone else wants to sit there and take it that his prerogative. If you have so high standards you should despise the people who voted down a movie without seeing it. Dont talk to me about standards. Get off your high pedestal. You dont like because I just dont roll over. Sorry. Stop belittling others. It gets tiresome.
 
Back
Top