Star Wars: Episode IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER

[ironwez20]

Lol I did think it was strange but a smart man with a burner account would never want the burner to sound exactly like his true self. They would change up how they convey themselves which would include how they respond or reply to disguise themselves. Yes pretty much what you said in your second sentance, now dumb burners like durant cant even do that, but i know your not dumb bro, i respect your opinon i am just trying to get you to admit that maybe the OT isnt as cherished by you as other since you were ok with the large depatures in canon with continuation of characters storyline, plus how you would use your percieved OT shortcommings to justify what the ST did specifically TLJ.

It?s rian Johnson. He?s been following this forum for several yrs now.

He escaped the dungeon of Disney .

Escaped or maybe set free.

He hates and loves TLJ as he loves and hates himself. He will never get rid of his need for it.

It was a pity Disney didn?t get ride of him when they had the chance. Or was it pity that stayed Disney?s hand

 

[ajp4mgs]

View attachment 491247

In all seriousness, I first got to know AJP?s handle on this forum through his custom OT figures. You don?t go to that much effort over something unless you have a deep respect and love for the subject matter. He?s just an infuriatingly good debater (some may consider him a Jedi Master Debater at times) who is able to take a step back from his love for the OT and highlight its faults when arguing that we shouldn?t hold the ST up to impossible standards because sometimes even the OT fell short too. Sadly AJP loves TLJ which means he is mistaken about a great many things but on this one point his argument does have some merit e.g. ROTJ was a bit rubbish sometimes which means the Prequels were good Star Wars movies hurray.

Thanks, Bravomite (at least for some of that ). You've been one of my most useful burner accounts.

Lol I did think it was strange but a smart man with a burner account would never want the burner to sound exactly like his true self. They would change up how they convey themselves which would include how they respond or reply to to posts. Yes pretty much what you said in your second sentence, now dumb burners like durant cant even do that, but i know your not dumb bro, i respect your opinion i am just trying to get you to admit that maybe the OT isnt as cherished by you as other since you were fine with the large departures in canon and continuity in character in TLJ, and how you always use your perceived OT plot holes or shortcomings to justify what the ST did specifically TLJ.

I can't admit something that isn't true. If you knew anything about how much those three movies meant to me, you'd never even consider typing that. But you don't know me at all, so I get why you think the things you post. It's all good anyway.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

Thanks, Bravomite (at least for some of that ). You've been one of my most useful burner accounts.



I can't admit something that isn't true. If you knew anything about how much those three movies meant to me, you'd never even consider typing that. But you don't know me at all, so I get why you think the things you post. It's all good anyway.

i dont want you too, all im trying do is understand why you feel the need to bring up small OT continuity issues or plot holes as justification for TLJ massive plot holes and continuity problems- In order to prove why TLJ isnt bad star wars film. People that love the OT would not do this, they would just say damn TLJ was a ****ing cluster ****, its like nothing that came before it as if it exist in its own world, where everything goes to ****, the force allows you to finger **** galaxies apart, send message and project yourself across the universe, cant you see how these powers really **** up the OT, you would be like why didnt they use them, well they didnt use them cause they are just made up powers in RJ's mind. Take harry porter for example, the films established all the rules of magic, what it could do what it couldnt do. Now in the last one if harry potter was able to turn his wand into a lightsaber wouldnt you be like wtf is going on here. Now if you didnt like the old harry potters, you would be like damn this is some cool ****, but for those who liked the lore and expected the new movie to follow it they be like what is this horse ****

 

[ajp4mgs]

i dont want you too, all im trying do is understand why you feel the need to bring up small OT continuity issues or plot holes as justification for TLJ massive plot holes and continuity problems- In order to prove why TLJ isnt bad star wars film. People that love the OT would not do this, they would just say damn TLJ was a ****ing cluster ****, its like nothing that came before it as if it exist in its own world, where everything goes to ****, the force allows you to finger **** galaxies apart, send message and project yourself across the universe, cant you see how these powers really **** up the OT, you would be like why didnt they use them, well they didnt use them cause they are just made up powers in RJ's mind

Massive plot holes and continuity problems are your subjective interpretation of them, IMO. I see it differently, and I think that's what is hard for you to believe. In your mind, you can't justify that because of how much you hated so many things about it. And when it comes to some of the complaints and criticisms of things that I find trivial, I bring up instances in the OT that I think are similar and that everyone understands don't actually matter.

I just see the film from an entirely different perspective than you do. For me, it's way more in line with how I perceived SW (especially thematically) growing up. That doesn't make my interpretation "right," but it does make it authentic to how I actually think and feel about this stuff. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[jal76]

Well, okay then. Should be interesting to read.

I just wonder if you've ever considered the possibility that movies can be judged based on the intended takeaway. In other words, if someone uses the cinematic medium with the intention of doing nothing more than providing a thrill ride for kids (and young-at-heart adults), then aren't those movies which are met with wild levels of enthusiasm fit to be considered a masterful use of the art form? Not all films and filmmakers with this intention actually succeed, much less use the medium to create a wildly popular entry.

Entertainment is one of the primary aims of cinema, is it not? That's just as important a metric of greatness to me as any sort of technical merit, innovative influence, or philosophical statement.

To use one of the films that you cited as a masterpiece, 2001 is unquestionably an unparalleled example of visual storytelling that broke new ground and influenced countless future filmmakers. But were audiences largely entertained? And is there even a coherent statement being made about the human condition with respect to where we've been and where we're going?

The ambiguity of 2001's plot and message is something I actually do appreciate, but fails to meet a standard that a film like Schindler's List (for example) achieves. With Schindler, even an audience fully aware of the historical atrocity comes away feeling it on a deeper level because it took a macro reality and humanized it by providing a compelling micro reality with personal and relatable experiences that resonate emotionally. It stays with you. I found it riveting on levels that 2001 could never achieve. Better acting, better pacing, and without sacrificing technical or intellectual merit.

You can make an objectively proficient film on a technical basis, and still have it met with critical and commercial apathy if it doesn't go beyond that, or if it simply fails to be entertaining. Some Godard films I enjoy watching, others I can't sit through. All innovative and pioneering, but not all engaging. Where's the line between technical proficiency and making something engaging when it comes to determining what a masterpiece is? To applaud proficiency and smirk at visceral entertainment misses the point of movies, IMO.



And that's what I took away from your posts, me.

I appreciate everything in this post...except for Schindler?s List being a superior film to 2001...its a masterpiece no doubt...but 2001 was truly groundbreaking on a different level.
Anyway, I am in the camp that a film does need to be ?serious? in order to be considered a high quality work of art. One of my favorite films of all time is DePalma?s Phantom of the Paradise...a very satirical and even silly film...but a truly unique artistic statement and that is why I love it.
I do not, however, believe that a great film needs to make a statement about the human condition. I think that greatness can come from the artistry being displayed by the filmmaker in his or her ability to simply tell a visual story.
I think a Stanley Kubrick film about a guy siting down at a bar and eating chicken wings would probably be a much greater film than a World War II epic from JJ Abrams simply because Kubrick would employ more artistry and vision in telling his otherwise pointless tale than Abrams would in telling a complex one.
I mentioned before that I will always be entertained by great filmmaking regardless of my personal connection to the subject matter. I have zero interest in the sport of boxing but am always amazed by the sheer genius of the manner in which Scorsese films the fight scenes in Raging Bull.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

Massive plot holes and continuity problems are your subjective interpretation of them, IMO. I see it differently, and I think that's what is hard for you to believe. In your mind, you can't justify that because of how much you hated so many things about it. And when it comes to some of the complaints and criticisms of things that I find trivial, I bring up instances in the OT that I think are similar and that everyone understands don't actually matter.

I just see the film from an entirely different perspective than you do. For me, it's way more in line with how I perceived SW (especially thematically) growing up. That doesn't make my interpretation "right," but it does make it authentic to how I actually think and feel about this stuff. I don't know what else to tell you.

again i am 100% fine with that, but you pretty much admitted that the ST is more in line with how you perceive star wars, so by default you probably enjoyed it more then the OT which again is fine. I just dont think its a good idea to tear down the OT in order to promote why you like the ST so much, because honestly you are in the minority here. I agree though your opinion is just as valid as anyone elses, it just got confusing to me when you professed your love of the OT but then are so willing to tear it down in order to build up the ST. Now i get it, the ST is really more your cup of tea, and how you envision star wars. I am no longer confused, thank you and i do respect your opinion, i hope i havent conveyed otherwise

 

[JAWS]

Ah crap!

I know I can be pretentious from time to time, but some of the posts here in the last several pages have actually made me cringe with how obnoxiously pretentious they were.

Thanks for clearing that up, JAWS.

.. Thats why I was soooo confused.. I was like "Man this guy isnt who I thought he was"

Well, okay then. Should be interesting to read.

I just wonder if you've ever considered the possibility that movies can be judged based on the intended takeaway. In other words, if someone uses the cinematic medium with the intention of doing nothing more than providing a thrill ride for kids (and young-at-heart adults), then aren't those movies which are met with wild levels of enthusiasm fit to be considered a masterful use of the art form? Not all films and filmmakers with this intention actually succeed, much less use the medium to create a wildly popular entry.

Entertainment is one of the primary aims of cinema, is it not? That's just as important a metric of greatness to me as any sort of technical merit, innovative influence, or philosophical statement.

To use one of the films that you cited as a masterpiece, 2001 is unquestionably an unparalleled example of visual storytelling that broke new ground and influenced countless future filmmakers. But were audiences largely entertained? And is there even a coherent statement being made about the human condition with respect to where we've been and where we're going?

The ambiguity of 2001's plot and message is something I actually do appreciate, but fails to meet a standard that a film like Schindler's List (for example) achieves. With Schindler, even an audience fully aware of the historical atrocity comes away feeling it on a deeper level because it took a macro reality and humanized it by providing a compelling micro reality with personal and relatable experiences that resonate emotionally. It stays with you. I found it riveting on levels that 2001 could never achieve. Better acting, better pacing, and without sacrificing technical or intellectual merit.

You can make an objectively proficient film on a technical basis, and still have it met with critical and commercial apathy if it doesn't go beyond that, or if it simply fails to be entertaining. Some Godard films I enjoy watching, others I can't sit through. All innovative and pioneering, but not all engaging. Where's the line between technical proficiency and making something engaging when it comes to determining what a masterpiece is? To applaud proficiency and smirk at visceral entertainment misses the point of movies, IMO.



And that's what I took away from your posts, me.

2001 has never done anything for me. Its such a chore to get through but I can understand why its called a masterpiece.. Its just no my masterpiece.

If you guys only knew how many B movies I own that I consider to be masterpieces lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is Cannibal Campout a Masterpiece ??

i dont want you too, all im trying do is understand why you feel the need to bring up small OT continuity issues or plot holes as justification for TLJ massive plot holes and continuity problems- In order to prove why TLJ isnt bad star wars film. People that love the OT would not do this, they would just say damn TLJ was a ****ing cluster ****, its like nothing that came before it as if it exist in its own world, where everything goes to ****, the force allows you to finger **** galaxies apart, send message and project yourself across the universe, cant you see how these powers really **** up the OT, you would be like why didnt they use them, well they didnt use them cause they are just made up powers in RJ's mind. Take harry porter for example, the films established all the rules of magic, what it could do what it couldnt do. Now in the last one if harry potter was able to turn his wand into a lightsaber wouldnt you be like wtf is going on here. Now if you didnt like the old harry potters, you would be like damn this is some cool ****, but for those who liked the lore and expected the new movie to follow it they be like what is this horse ****

But the PT ****ed with the lore also... And yet I dont say "You cant really love the OT if you like the PT"

Super Jedi speed, Jumping for miles, falling hundreds of feet landing on you own two feet without a scratch, Lightsabers being used like lite fencing swords when Lucas himself said they should be wielded as if they are heavy, having to be taught how to be a force ghost, midichlorians, and a force born child.

If you can accept a child born of the force then you should not have trouble with Force projections.



I do believe Ajp is just pointing out that if you complain about something in the ST and there is dirt in your PT / OT face then then you should not be complaining so much.

Now dont get me wrong.. Ajp is completely wrong about TLJ.. Its crap for sure.. But its crapness has little to do with plot holes

 

[JAWS]

I He?s just an infuriatingly good debater (some may consider him a Jedi Master Debater at times)

tee-hee

Master Debater

tee-hee

 

[JAWS]

again i am 100% fine with that, but you pretty much admitted that the ST is more in line with how you perceive star wars, so by default you probably enjoyed it more then the OT which again is fine. I just dont think its a good idea to tear down the OT in order to promote why you like the ST so much, because honestly you are in the minority here. I agree though your opinion is just as valid as anyone elses, it just got confusing to me when you professed your love of the OT but then are so willing to tear it down in order to build up the ST. Now i get it, the ST is really more your cup of tea, and how you envision star wars. I am no longer confused, thank you and i do respect your opinion, i hope i havent conveyed otherwise

I think you see it as tearing down... Others just see it as making a point.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

.. Thats why I was soooo confused.. I was like "Man this guy isnt who I thought he was"




2001 has never done anything for me. Its such a chore to get through but I can understand why its called a masterpiece.. Its just no my masterpiece.





Is Cannibal Campout a Masterpiece ??





But the PT ****ed with the lore also... And yet I dont say "You cant really love the OT if you like the PT"

Super Jedi speed, Jumping for miles, falling hundreds of feet landing on you own two feet without a scratch, Lightsabers being used like lite fencing swords when Lucas himself said they should be wielded as if they are heavy, having to be taught how to be a force ghost, midichlorians, and a force born child.

If you can accept a child born of the force then you should not have trouble with Force projections.



I do believe Ajp is just pointing out that if you complain about something in the ST and there is dirt in your PT / OT face then then you should not be complaining so much.

Now dont get me wrong.. Ajp is completely wrong about TLJ.. Its crap for sure.. But its crapness has little to do with plot holes

The pt was poorly executed but the character and lore resonated with people on a level no st character was able to do. The proof is in the toy sales and disk sales. The st were better quality movies then the pt but they didnt have any character people cared about or resenated enough with them to want to own the character or even the movie itself. People did not like the lore, the characters, the story anything enough to want to buy anything from it. Even the people that profess to like the st wont spend money on it to buy any collectibles let alone a limited collectors edition of the movies, yet the pt toys and movies sell out like hot cakes. The only explanation for this is people simply hate the st as star wars movie regardless if they were better films, they just werent better star wars films then the pt, but ill agree they were better executed movies but they had no likable characters and it shows

 

[The Buffinator]

Grow up!

You write like a child, you don't accept that other people have different opinions about a subjective work of art (yes, the films are subjective)

See, you're a immature child

I did not insult him, i just said to him to grow up and stop being so closed minded. Star Wars just like any movie or entertainment product is subjective

Well, maybe your intentions weren't to be insulting, but based on the content of your initial posts you have to concede they could easily be interpreted that way.

Dude i usually post in the Hot Toys topics......
I am sorry Skywalker(OG)Kush, you're clearly a crazy person, today was not my first post in months. I will let you continue with your reign in this post.
The Buffinator you sad to me that "we usually try to keep things civil while voicing our differences of opinion. So maybe refrain from the insults?", so can you talk to your friend and teach this for him?

I would say I disagree with Skywalker(OG)Kush at least 99% of the time, so I wouldn't call us friends. But as I've said before, I respect his right to be wrong. When the arguments become repetitive/pointless, I find it best to follow Khev's & ajp4mgs's lead and simply disengage.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

Well jackollie i hope to see around more often, not just in circumstances whe agp needs a random voice to assist him with a discussion. Also maybe try not calling someone a child or baby an expect a valid response especially when thats your method of engaging them into a discussion in the first place

 

[Otomofan]

Excellent post.

As for the statement I put in bold, you don't consider "No Country For Old Men" worthy of that distinction? If you don't mind, I'd be curious to know why.

And as long as I'm pestering you, I'd also appreciate your thoughts about "Parasite" not making your cut. Is it the social commentary that bugs you, or were you unimpressed in a more general sense?

Thank you.

As for "No Country" I've only seen it once, and to be completely honest, I think I missed the point.

At the time it came out, I had just moved back to Japan and I was living in a tiny room with no computer or cell phone. It was weird to be completely shut off from the world like that. I'd have to go to internet cafes and read up on stuff a few times a week. And I remember everyone going on and on about how amazing "No Country" and "There Will Be Blood" were. Just gushing about these two masterpieces that everyone had to see.

Well, I finally got to see them about a year after they were released when I rented the DVDs. (Yes, this was a long time ago.)

I only watched each movie once, and with both, I was a bit baffled at what all the fuss was about. Both movies had these despicable characters and abrupt endings and I really didn't know what to make of them. I thought I must have missed something. It's been a long time though, so perhaps I should watch them again. I think reading all that hype gave me preconceived notions.

As for "Parasite," I just haven't watched it yet.

I do think there have been plenty of very GOOD or even GREAT movies over the last 15 years or so, but just not as many as there used to be. And I think it's fairly obvious why. The Hollywood system needs movies to be bigger and dumber and louder in order to appeal to broader audiences, especially overseas audiences.

I'm a huge Tarantino fan, so I try to see all his movies without reading any reviews or watching trailers. But I consider Tarantino his own thing...he almost doesn't count. His movies are so uniquely his that I can't really compare them to other movies. He's his own category. I thought "Basterds" was terribly disappointing after looking forward to it for such a long time, but that's one I've been meaning to rewatch. I loved "Django" and I think it's one his best. "Hateful Eight" was good....not great, but good. And "Once Upon a Time" was.....well.....I don't know what it was. It was almost like watching cinematic jazz....just freeform or something. I have the bluray and I'm definitely looking forward to a rewatch. I liked it....it was a good experience at the theater....but it was really just ODD, wasn't it?

Hmmm. I liked most of the super hero stuff on a superficial level but honestly, to me that's like the junk food equivalent of movies. I'm not above loving "junk" movies....two of my all time favorites are "Independence Day" and "Troy."

I'm just trying to think of movies I saw in the last decade or so that I really liked. "Gone Girl" was very well done. I liked "Ford vs Ferrari" but that was just a "good movie" not a masterpiece or anything. I watched "Uncut Gems" and that was almost an experimental movie with it's use of sound/music, but wasn't exactly an enjoyable movie.

I guess there's only been a few times I saw a movie where it was so good, I knew I was watching something truly amazing. "Pulp Fiction." "The Matrix." "Fight Club." "American Psycho." "Lord of the Rings." "Eternal Sunshine." I haven't felt that way in a long time.

Even stuff that was supposed to be "the next big thing" like Avatar was forgotten as soon as I left the theater. Whereas some movies are immortal for a reason. Right before the lockdown, I saw "Apocalypse Now Final Cut" in IMAX. That was months ago and I'm still thinking about how amazing certain scenes and shots were. Just picture Martin Sheen's head coming out of the water.....you can see it clear as day in your mind....just picture those helicopters coming in over that village while Wagner is blasting.....you getting goosebumps?

 

[JAWS]

Thank you.

As for "No Country" I've only seen it once, and to be completely honest, I think I missed the point.

At the time it came out, I had just moved back to Japan and I was living in a tiny room with no computer or cell phone. It was weird to be completely shut off from the world like that. I'd have to go to internet cafes and read up on stuff a few times a week. And I remember everyone going on and on about how amazing "No Country" and "There Will Be Blood" were. Just gushing about these two masterpieces that everyone had to see.

Well, I finally got to see them about a year after they were released when I rented the DVDs. (Yes, this was a long time ago.)

I only watched each movie once, and with both, I was a bit baffled at what all the fuss was about. Both movies had these despicable characters and abrupt endings and I really didn't know what to make of them. I thought I must have missed something. It's been a long time though, so perhaps I should watch them again. I think reading all that hype gave me preconceived notions.

As for "Parasite," I just haven't watched it yet.

I felt like you did when I first watched Old Country.. It deserves a second shot. Much better the 2nd time when i sort of knew what i was in for.

There will be Blood... Not a fan. Maybe I need to watch that one again..

Parasite.. I dont get the love for that one.. I watch too many North Korean films to be too shocked at some of the events that happened. IDK.. It was well made and all.. I just was not moved one way or the other.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

I think you see it as tearing down... Others just see it as making a point.

He already admitted that the st is more how he envisioned star wars so thats not true. But i respect his opinion, its no less valid than mine, atleast his arguments make sense to me now

 

[jye4ever]

I can go from watching Black Orpheus right into Street Trash.

Movie watching is not meant to make sense to anyone not even yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

I can go from watching Black Orpheus right into Street Trash.

Movie watching is not meant to make sense to anyone not even yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? I was confused cause he professed his love for the ot but then constantly used his percieved problems with the ot to justify tlj. Now i know that the st is more in line with how he envisioned star wars his line of reasoning makes sense

 

[JAWS]

The pt was poorly executed but the character and lore resonated with people on a level no st character was able to do. The proof is in the toy sales and disk sales. The st were better quality movies then the pt but they didnt have any character people cared about or resenated enough with them to want to own the character or even the movie itself. People did not like the lore, the characters, the story anything enough to want to buy anything from it. Even the people that profess to like the st wont spend money on it to buy any collectibles let alone a limited collectors edition of the movies, yet the pt toys and movies sell out like hot cakes. The only explanation for this is people simply hate the st as star wars movie regardless if they were better films, they just werent better star wars films then the pt, but ill agree they were better executed movies but they had no likable characters and it shows

I was not hating on the PT.. Just pointing out that they screwed with the established lore.

Just because the PT is well liked or if the toy sell has nothing to do with whether or not the PT films messed with the OT lore.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

I was not hating on the PT.. Just pointing out that they screwed with the established lore.

Just because the PT is well liked or if the toy sell has nothing to do with whether or not the PT films messed with the OT lore.

They didnt mess with ot lore nearly as much as the st no matter how you spin it

 

[JAWS]

He already admitted that the st is more how he envisioned star wars so thats not true. But i respect his opinion, its no less valid than mine, atleast his arguments make sense to me now

Wait I think I am lost

What I mean ajp is just making a point that the OT films have plot holes also... I dont see that as tearing down.. But maybe I missed a part of the conversation somewhere