Those who disliked TLJ, are you still buying toys from it?

[koonfasa]

Oh, I know...

(re:X-wing=gun)

 

[DCFett]

Oh don't give me that. JJ Abrams talked at length about his "mystery boxes". Setting up mysteries to engage the audience and get them speculating.
He also knew that he had no clue what the answers to those questions were because he didn't find them very important. Its the same crap he pulled with "LOST". You cant deliberately engage the audience in a mystery, knowing full well that you are getting them to guess and speculate, and then blame them when you reveal that there weren't any answers.

Yes exactly! This is the very reason I was shocked that they picked JJ in the first place. Was even more shocked that he wasn’t doing the whole trilogy but thought that maybe Lucasfilm could reel him in and we’d get something of a completed story but what we ARE getting feels like a bit of jumbled mess. Didn’t start right, not really going right, not gonna end right, IMO. I don’t feel I know any more about these characters then I knew from TFA. Same journey, just different story. TFA and TLJ, to me, could both be EP VII. This installment does not deepen the characters in any meaningful way to me. As stand alone movies, both are done fairly well. As chapter pieces, they are mismatched.

 

[LoveMinusZero]

TLJ is a terrible movie to learn anything from.

TLJ, like the prequels, are actually very good films to learn what NOT to do in filmmaking. I used to think there could have been a university course designed around the prequels and how fascinating they are in terms of film and storytelling failures, sadly now TLJ could be another part of that series.

 

[DCFett]

This paralleled ESB as much as TFA did ANH with the same main acts, just in a different order, but more significantly playing out to different expectations. Obviously the Hoth battle was played out at the end. The Jedi training and the darkside cave/well at the start. There was also the betrayal on the gambling planet just like Calrissian on the mining city (underlining money theme there too - really did that have to be spelt out). The asteroid space chase running from the Empire to join the rest of the rebels, or running from the First Order to be the last of the rebels. And of course the lightsaber duel, from "I am your father" to nobody.

I sincerely hope that this is not what they were thinking when they put this story together!!!

 

[DCFett]

tlj, like the prequels, are actually very good films to learn what not to do in filmmaking. I used to think there could have been a university course designed around the prequels and how fascinating they are in terms of film and storytelling failures, sadly now tlj could be another part of that series.

Storytelling Don’ts 102 Rm: 110

 

[Wor-Gar]

TLJ, like the prequels, are actually very good films to learn what NOT to do in filmmaking. I used to think there could have been a university course designed around the prequels and how fascinating they are in terms of film and storytelling failures, sadly now TLJ could be another part of that series.

True.

Although structurally, TPM holds up. It spends too much time in the wrong places during its second act is its main flaw. AOTC is an absolute mess, like TLJ. ROTS returns to structural form only because it was the only necessary story told out of the three PT films so it naturally has a beginning, middle and end. Beyond that, again, its suffers from Lucas spending way too much time on things that don't require it (like that long talk when Anakin discovers Palps is a Sith) and far too little dramatic time on things that should be milked (like the moment Anakin becomes Vader -- tossed out as an afterthought like TLJ Luke tossing his saber away).

 

[LoveMinusZero]

I'm in that minority that feels TPM is the strongest of the 3 prequels as well. They really are fascinating to dissect in that sense, but it's a damn shame the new films are now in that category.

 

[SilverStar17]

I'm in the even more extreme minority that liked RotS. Mostly because like WG stated, it was essentially the entire point of the PT.

 

[LoveMinusZero]

You can like any bad film at all, I love all kinds of bad movies, but I don't try to convince anyone that they're not bad.
(not saying you do, just mean some people in general)

 

[SilverStar17]

You can like any bad film at all, I love all kinds of bad movies, but I don't try to convince anyone that they're not bad.
(not saying you do, just mean some people in general)

Yes, but who gets to determine that they're bad? It's all subjective really. You can say the same for those who try to convince others a film is bad. You can just as easily dislike a good film.

 

[LoveMinusZero]

Subjective vs Objective film criticism is topic that would take up an entire new thread lol.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Yes, but who gets to determine that they're bad? It's all subjective really. You can say the same for those who try to convince others a film is bad. You can just as easily dislike a good film.

Not at all. There are tangible, physical, structural elements that can be used to describe why one film works better than another. There's no accounting for taste, but there is for construction and execution.

 

[SilverStar17]

Not at all. There are tangible, physical, structural elements that can be used to describe why one film works better than another. There's no accounting for taste, but there is for construction and execution.

I can see that, but what if one person saw something in it that the other person didn't? It then comes down to who can provide the better line of reasoning and argument.

 

[Wor-Gar]

I can see that, but what if one person saw something in it that the other person didn't?

Has nothing to do with it, that is subjective.

Anyone can like a badly made movie. Many people here like badly made movies because they saw them when they were young and had no understanding -- they simply liked "the things" in the movie; the battles, the wars, the heroes, the villains, the vehicles, the girls, the colors, the music.

Most here probably can't sit thru Citizen Kane -- me included -- but there's no denying it is a masterfully constructed film well ahead of its time and it established and expanded cinematic "language" for filmmakers of the coming generations. A lot of people don't see that stuff when they watch the movie. So is Citizen Kane a bad movie because you don't like it?

 

[SilverStar17]

Ok, but what if that person genuinely believes it wasn't a badly made film, and can provide a cogent argument as to why?

 

[koonfasa]

Bad guys, like Obiwan says, only from a certain point of view. Hell, the resistance are all suicide bombers. Every single one of them, just like ISIS.

I loved TPM, that movie felt like Star Wars where every turn was wrought with possible failure, and every victory had to overcome insurmountable odds. This was the force to me as much as the Jedi super powers. Han says it's all luck, Rey said that was lucky, Jar jar was pure luck even Qui-gonn trusted in him...

 

[LoveMinusZero]

Ok, but what if that person genuinely believes it wasn't a badly made film, and can provide a cogent argument as to why?

They're always engaging to listen to and discuss with, as long as neither side is the unbridled "apologist" or "hater". Talking about movies is always fun.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Ok, but what if that person genuinely believes it wasn't a badly made film, and can provide a cogent argument as to why?

That's what academia do. And lawyers.

If your argument is valid enough over time I suppose it becomes truth. As they say, history is written by the winners. But that doesn't mean its true. There is truth -- everything else is our interpretation of that truth.

Structure attempts to remain empirical.

 

[SilverStar17]

That's what academia do. And lawyers.

If your argument is valid enough over time I suppose it becomes truth. As they say, history is written by the winners. But that doesn't mean its true. There is truth -- everything else is our interpretation of that truth.

Structure attempts to remain empirical.

Yes, but that's presuming that person's argument is automatically incorrect. There are indeed undeniable facts within a film based on what happened or didn't happen, and with those facts, people then form their own opinion on the film. They're not denying something happened or didn't happen in the film, but they saw it differently than what someone else did.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Yes, but that's presuming that person's argument is automatically incorrect. There are indeed undeniable facts within a film based on what happened or didn't happen, and with those facts, people then form their own opinion on the film. They're not denying something happened or didn't happen in the film, but they saw it differently than what someone else did.

You're deliberately missing the point for the sake of argument. Whether they did something or not and how you feel about it is inconsequential to this debate; that's subjective. The objective portion is the way that action occurs within that particular media's framework for storytelling language.

I know you already understand this.