Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)

[jye4ever]

I want to take Dolby Atmos 15/70 playing IW to a group of people in 1950 and watch them pass out.

Not from the technology but from “Is is is THAT A BLACK SUPERHERO!” lol

 

[JAWS]

Yep and I easily stand by what I said. 80's films are spoken of in hushed tones around here (often for good reason)

Why? Lots of all time great films made in the 80's

 

[Khev]

I want to take Dolby Atmos 15/70 playing IW to a group of people in 1950 and watch them pass out.

Not from the technology but from “Is is is THAT A BLACK SUPERHERO!” lol

Or take Hereditary back to 1939 and sneak it into an auditorium that people were expecting to show Gone with the Wind, lol.

Why? Lots of all time great films made in the 80's

Like I said "often for good reason."

But there have been a lot of great films made this decade as well.

And PM sent.

 

[jye4ever]

This is why I chose team Khev btw.

Shows respect for the greats from between 1973-1995 while still enjoying current cinema without being a negative ninnie like some on here where EVERY CURRENT MODERN MOVIE MUST SUCK!

 

[xipotec]

When I said cinema was dying , it was a direct reference to the complete lack of original ideas.

Show me anything in the past 10 years that come close to the original idea of .....lets pick a few....

Gremlins
Ghostbusters
Beetleguise
The Goonies
A Nightmare on Elm St
The Terminator
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Blade Runner

Original ideas are the problem. We instead get endless sequels and Remakes.

The best new original idea of the past 20 years was the Harry Potter series....and look at the attention it got.

Other than that....maybe the Matrix.



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[Khev]

This is why I chose team Khev btw.

Shows respect for the greats from between 1973-1995 while still enjoying current cinema without being a negative ninnie like some on here where EVERY CURRENT MODERN MOVIE MUST SUCK!

Nothing will match the magic of watching the OT, early Spielberg, early Cameron, BTTF, RoboCop, etc., when they first came out but there's already still second-tier nostalgia for films of the 90's, LOTR, superheroes converging into a single film, etc., and in 10-20 years we'll look back on the awesomeness of IW, RO, BR 2049 and will be one of the cool kids that actually saw Solo on the big screen, lol.

Plus we're at ground zero of the "A24 era" with The VVitch, Ghost Story and Hereditary and whatever else they have coming around the corner. Lots to celebrate in the past, present, and future baby.

 

[Khev]

When I said cinema was dying , it was a direct reference to the complete lack of original ideas.

Show me anything in the past 10 years that come close to the original idea of .....lets pick a few....

Gremlins
Ghostbusters
Beetleguise
The Goonies
A Nightmare on Elm St
The Terminator
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Blade Runner

You can't put BR on that list since it was a novel. Otherwise I'd put Ex Machina above everything on that list except The Terminator.

Other "original" genre films from the last 10 years:

Disctrict 9
Inglorious Basterds
Krampus
The VVitch
10 Cloverfield Lane
A Ghost Story
Annihilation

Plus all the genuinely good/great sequels/adaptations like the BB/TDK's, the Logans, the RO/Solos, the RPO's and BR 2049's and what have you. Once you add in the non-genre films then the list really gets packed. I'm not disagreeing that the 80's might be my favorite decade of films but there's still a lot to love in this day and age IMO.

 

[TaliBane]

You can't put BR on that list since it was a novel. Otherwise I'd put Ex Machina above everything on that list except The Terminator.

Other "original" genre films from the last 10 years:

Disctrict 9
Inglorious Basterds
Krampus
The VVitch
10 Cloverfield Lane
A Ghost Story
Annihilation

Plus all the genuinely good/great sequels/adaptations like the BB/TDK's, the Logans, the RO/Solos, the RPO's and BR 2049's and what have you. Once you add in the non-genre films then the list really gets packed. I'm not disagreeing that the 80's might be my favorite decade of films but there's still a lot to love in this day and age IMO.

You keep turning this into opinions and lists.

The factual reality is, the number of major movies written originally for the screen dropped from the 70s/80s to the 2000s and has dropped even more from the 2000s to today. Yes, there are still original films made today, and yes there were branded/adapted films made in the 70s and 80s. It is the relative NUMBERS that have changed. What Xipotec is saying is true. And not only are less being made, they are less culturally important as previously discussed.

There are obviously exceptions - Avatar being a big one. But the film industry has changed a lot in this regard. It is vast majority about branded IP today whereas that was a minority in the 70s and 80s, part of a more even mix of sources for films.

 

[Khev]

You keep turning this into opinions and lists.

Because that's all statements like this are:

As a side note, cinema in general is dead. I can honestly say we will never see films like days past (especially the great 1970 through 1990 boom of grear films).

Despite how much you want to suggest otherwise. A "boom of great films" is nothing more than a list of films considered great by someone's personal opinion, nothing more. Do I agree that the 70's, 80's and 90's are chalk full of great films? Of course. But so are the 2000's and 2010's.

"Oh but everything is a sequel or a remake now." No. There are anywhere between 700-900 films that get released each year. Maybe 20 of them are sequels or remakes. Just because those are the ones that audiences flock to and turn into "blockbusters" doesn't mean that that's all Hollywood is churning out or that "cinema is dead." Try expanding your vision beyond just the Top 10 money earners each year.

 

[xipotec]

Because that's all statements like this are:



Despite how much you want to suggest otherwise. A "boom of great films" is nothing more than a list of films considered great by someone's personal opinion, nothing more. Do I agree that the 70's, 80's and 90's are chalk full of great films? Of course. But so are the 2000's and 2010's.

"Oh but everything is a sequel or a remake now." No. There are anywhere between 700-900 films that get released each year. Maybe 20 of them are sequels or remakes. Just because those are the ones that audiences flock to and turn into "blockbusters" doesn't mean that that's all Hollywood is churning out or that "cinema is dead." Try expanding your vision beyond just the Top 10 money earners each year.

I get what your sayin, but most films to me today feel derivative of another previously done story. (And thats not including to obvious derivative nature of a sequel or prequel or and “Quel”

I have some favorite stand out films of the past decade, but with very few exceptions , they all feel very derivative.

Maybe its just a function of my age.

I do believe film could be pulling from some more novels and screenplays that are more original.

Some ideas...

Locke and Key
The Bobverse
14
The Mathew Corbett series



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[Khev]

I get what your sayin, but most films to me today feel derivative of another previously done story. (And thats not including to obvious derivative nature of a sequel or prequel or and “Quel”

I have some favorite stand out films of the past decade, but with very few exceptions , they all feel very derivative.

I hear what you're saying as well and I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, I'm simply stating a counterpoint based on my own take on where movies are currently at. There's only so much you can do in two hours and with each passing decade it is definitely an ever increasing challenge to tell stories that have never been told before or in ways that have never been told. "There's nothing new under the sun" is already a saying that's thousands of years old, lol.

I think that John Krasinski said it best with regard to "A Quiet Place" (though I believe he was actually quoting someone else) in that all writers can really do at this point is just take all these established storytelling tropes and tell them in a way that speaks to them personally. Because if a writer or director can take a story and go "I've seen this cliche 100 times but if it's presented this way in this scenario it really means something to me" then there's a well enough chance that that meaning will translate to a good portion of the audience as well.

Because at the end of the day we all want to watch films that appeal to us emotionally or intellectually or artistically (or all three) which can be done with an original story but it can also be done with an amazingly told derivative story (the original Star Wars being a spectacular example even though for many of us here all the elements borrowed from other stories *were* brand new due to our age when we first watched it.)

Anyway film trends will always ebb and flow with Hollywood always trying to hedge their bets with the most expensive productions by catering at least somewhat to established successful tropes or built-in audiences. Hard to avoid with production budgets being what they are. I do recognize and appreciate that they are still willing to take chances with new material even with huge budgets like with Avatar, Tomorrowland, John Carter, Jupiter Ascending, Valerian and even Guardians of the Galaxy. Unfortunately most of those big budget risks just tend to be unlucky enough to have their respective filmmakers drop the ball when it comes to quality and finding an audience. Or a studio does take a chance with a huge budget like for Fury Road or BR 2049 and the filmmakers *do* deliver the quality and they *still* don't find an audience. It sucks but I at least give the studios props for trying.

And since I enjoy pretty much every genre to some degree I still get to have fun with all the smaller and medium budget flicks that do take chances and offer something new. For instance there have been few movies of *any* decade that have kept me so clueless about where they were going than last year's "A Ghost Story" by David Lowry. So still a lot to appreciate and get excited about, but again, that's just my own take and personal opinion.

 

[xipotec]

I agree.

There have been quite a few sequels that have taken a well established trope and turned it into something special.

Although , hardly original ideas, the following films to me have really taken some tired ideas and breathed new lofe into them.

BR2049
Fury Road
Ex Machina
The Shape of Water
The Life of Pi



Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[e30ernest]

Going back to the discussion of Luke's pacifist portrayal:

https://www.express.co.uk/entertain...r-backlash-Last-Jedi-Return-of-the-Jedi-Vader

 

[Sachiel]

https://www.express.co.uk/entertain...r-backlash-Last-Jedi-Return-of-the-Jedi-Vader

"ROTJ ending EXPLAINED! Misread it, they did! TLJ is perfect! SUBVERSIVE!"

 

[Brett Banner]

Going back to the discussion of Luke's pacifist portrayal:

https://www.express.co.uk/entertain...r-backlash-Last-Jedi-Return-of-the-Jedi-Vader

Lol. No. We all understand the ending of ROTJ. We have all understood it perfectly well since 1983. I feel like I know what getting something “mansplained” to me must be like now. “Oh, you didn’t like that? Well you just haven’t understood this other thing for 35 years. Let me tell you and in the process make sure you know how much smarter I am than you.” Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ajp4mgs]

Lol. No. We all understand the ending of ROTJ. We have all understood it perfectly well since 1983. I feel like I know what getting something “mansplained” to me must be like now. “Oh, you didn’t like that? Well you just haven’t understood this other thing for 35 years. Let me tell you and in the process make sure you know how much smarter I am than you.” Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I have to agree with you. I gladly defend TLJ here, but suggesting that fans who didn't like Luke's characterization in the film is because they misinterpreted the ending of ROTJ just seems really lame. The fact that Rian Johnson would even imply that he believes it just makes him seem lame too.

I don't think anything that happened in ROTJ is subject to much misinterpretation. Everything in the film is all pretty straightforward. It's not like David Lynch directed it; I know there were rumors that Lucas wanted Lynch, but that didn't actually happen.

What I do believe, though, is that people who don't like Luke exiling himself to Ahch-To should blame TFA - not TLJ - since Abrams made it clear that Luke left everyone (and everything) he cared about to exile himself because he felt responsible for what happened with Kylo. It was Johnson's task to offer a reason for Luke to have done that in a way that still would have maintained him as the virtuous hero. I think he pulled it off well, but I understand that many disagree (and that they don't just disagree because they "didn't get" ROTJ).

For those who don't like Luke contemplating killing his nephew in his sleep: yes, that's on Johnson/TLJ. For those who don't like that Luke didn't ultimately go with Rey: yes, that's also on Johnson/TLJ. But the exile itself (and the abandoning of everyone because he felt responsible/guilty): that's on Abrams/TFA, and Johnson merely inherited that - having to find some way to explain why the Luke Skywalker from the OT would have ever turned away in exile but still be the guy who always does the right thing.

 

[TaliBane]

No, the Twitter guy was actually saying that it's the OTHER "Luke Skywalker" seen on Tatooine (visible in the background of this shot) - let's call him Luke Doppelganger - who ends up on that island in TLJ, bitter and burnt out.

It's a really interesting theory, and I can see why it opens the windows for RJ.

 

[a-dev]

Yeah, I have to agree with you. I gladly defend TLJ here, but suggesting that fans who didn't like Luke's characterization in the film is because they misinterpreted the ending of ROTJ just seems really lame. The fact that Rian Johnson would even imply that he believes it just makes him seem lame too.

I don't think anything that happened in ROTJ is subject to much misinterpretation. Everything in the film is all pretty straightforward. It's not like David Lynch directed it; I know there were rumors that Lucas wanted Lynch, but that didn't actually happen.

What I do believe, though, is that people who don't like Luke exiling himself to Ahch-To should blame TFA - not TLJ - since Abrams made it clear that Luke left everyone (and everything) he cared about to exile himself because he felt responsible for what happened with Kylo. It was Johnson's task to offer a reason for Luke to have done that in a way that still would have maintained him as the virtuous hero. I think he pulled it off well, but I understand that many disagree (and that they don't just disagree because they "didn't get" ROTJ).

For those who don't like Luke contemplating killing his nephew in his sleep: yes, that's on Johnson/TLJ. For those who don't like that Luke didn't ultimately go with Rey: yes, that's also on Johnson/TLJ. But the exile itself (and the abandoning of everyone because he felt responsible/guilty): that's on Abrams/TFA, and Johnson merely inherited that - having to find some way to explain why the Luke Skywalker from the OT would have ever turned away in exile but still be the guy who always does the right thing.

Exactly. I don't like TLJ but some of the major things I don't like about it originate in TFA. So I dunno what the hell Abrams is gonna 'fix' in 9 - he set it on this course in the first place.

Making Luke more physically heroic by actually changing his mind and going with Rey to do battle or whatever might have made it a bit more satisfying but I still wouldn't have liked what TFA had saddled The Last Jedi with - we still would have the ridiculous Starkiller base in the canon; we still would have been watching a boring Empire VS rebels repeat; Han Solo would still be dead - depriving us of even having one scene with the original 3 together on screen again.

I understand TLJ hate but I don't understand those same people loving TFA.

 

[xipotec]

I have always felt many fans missed the point of the end of ROTJ, when your a kid its easy to view that scene as Luke won end of story.

But thats not what happened.

Luke was goaded into fighting. The Emperor used manipulation (fear and anger) to push Luke toward the dark side.

This is the moment where people lose the narrative

Luke realizes the Emperor has won. His fear and anger take over and he uses the Dark Side to gain the upper hand. As Yoda warned him not too.

Only through his fear and anger does he beat Vader....clearly he tapping into the Dark side.

They were showing Lukes transformation into a powerful Dark side force user....

Luke of course , in TRUE Jedi Master form , realizes whats happening to him, finally accepts Yodas teaching, and saves himself by becoming pacifist, accepting his fate, and allowing his own self sacrifice to be his last honorable act. (As he did in TLJ) Lukes destiny was to do this all along.

Vaders redemption was not Lukes victory, it was Anakin’s. Although, in the end , it killed him. Once again showing the true power of a Jedi master was self sacrifice for people who needed protection. Similar to the code of the samurai and knights of the table.

The point of the whole shebang is not “who beat who” but whom saved their souls ......

Luke realized his role was to not be drawn into the conflict, possibly falling to the same fate as his father did( as THREE characters warned him he could...Obi, Yoda and the Emperor.)

This why I had zero problem with his arc in TLJ. Luke clearly states his hubris in thinking he could lead new Jedi led to his downfall. His slide toward the dark side begins again when his fear of what Kylo has inside him surfaces. So Luke decided again to take the pacifist route and take himself out if the equation. But in the end realized one can fight for ones friends without violence , anger or fear.....as many great leaders also realize....by becoming a symbol....

Luke finally understands Yoda’s most important teaching.

“A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and events......NEVER for attack”

This is also the reason for the downfall of the entire Jedi Order. They were blinded by Palpatine, goaded into joining a war, and during that phase were destroyed from within.

“ We cant fight a war for you”

But in the end ....they did, and that destroyed them all.

I have a ton more proofs to this theory also....

From Mace Windu all the way through the incredible end if the Clone Wars series into Rebels....its actually the main arc if both those series.

Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[jye4ever]

Great post.


Yup one could say that the seed was planted there were he didn’t like how the Jedi/Sith interacted with the force.


Complete opposite of what fans wanted which was a Luke who embraced the Jedi order.


But the Jedi order was just as much guilty of creating chaos as the Sith were.