Star Wars Megathread Episode IV: A New Thread: UNTAGGED SPOILERS? 1 WEEK BAN - Film, Television and Music

The movie was pretty good, the best in the new trilogy so far. But [sp] Leia force-flying through space [/sp] was damn ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Mifil;52998066]The movie was pretty good, the best in the new trilogy so far. But [sp] Leia force-flying through space [/sp] was damn ridiculous.[/QUOTE] They could have shot that in so many different ways and it would have been not silly

[QUOTE=_Chewgum;52997886]the effects and shits were ok but the story and some characters were just horrible imo[/QUOTE] Do you honestly believe that? Luke, Kylo and Rey were just horrible?

Adam Driver is just knocking it out of the park, like, he's giving it way more effort than some of the others.

[QUOTE=Mifil;52998066]The movie was pretty good, the best in the new trilogy so far. But [sp] Leia force-flying through space [/sp] was damn ridiculous.[/QUOTE] This is quite literally the only scene in the film that made me genuinely wonder why I was watching it. It's just so out of place. The film was enjoyable overall though, my friends and I had a good time watching it. Most of the jokes were totally misfires, one or two worked well. But outside of the jokes I didn't have many more complaints other than the B plot not really going anywhere.

The movie was enjoyable but not without flaws, despite what some people are saying I think nostalgia-goggles are actually causing some people to unfairly dismiss the movie rather than giving it a fair chance.

[sp]The whole plot line where Rose and Finn go and try to disable the hyperspace tracking was totally pointless.[/sp] [sp]Not only did they not end up needing that technology, if Finn and Rose had stayed put, The rebel fleet wouldn't have been destroyed because they wouldn't have gotten captured and their info wouldn't have been sold by Benicio Del Toro.[/sp] [sp]Also, if the vice admiral had just told everyone what the plan was, nobody would have had to mutiny to avoid getting killed by what they thought was an incompetent leader.[/sp] [sp]Movies where the plot is advanced or conflict is introduced by characters not communicating with each other is crappy writing.[/sp] [sp]Also, what the fuck was that scene where Leia force-pulls herself back to the air lock?[/sp] [sp]I kept waiting for them to kill her off[/sp], [sp]and the scene where they kept flashing between her and kylo felt so poorly edited that I was sure they had jammed it in there last minute to kill her off since Carrie Fisher died, but then they didn't kill her so I don't know why it felt so poorly edited[/sp] [sp]Like so much of the movies felt really awkward and didn't make any sense, compositionally[/sp]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52997945]My opinion is that if a film relies on another one to be a good movie, it's a shitty movie.[/QUOTE] The Dark Knight Toy Story 2 Empire Strikes Back The Godfather Part 2 The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (and For A Few Dollars More) Terminator 2 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Aliens Road Warrior (and Fury Road) Evil Dead 2 X-Men 2 Prisoner of Azkaban Skyfall Dawn of the Dead Mission Impossible Desperado Kill Bill 2 Hellboy 2 Shrek 2

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52998118][sp]The whole plot line where Rose and Finn go and try to disable the hyperspace tracking was totally pointless.[/sp] [sp]Not only did they not end up needing that technology, if Finn and Rose had stayed put, The rebel fleet wouldn't have been destroyed because they wouldn't have gotten captured and their info wouldn't have been sold by Benicio Del Toro.[/sp] [sp]Also, if the vice admiral had just told everyone what the plan was, nobody would have had to mutiny to avoid getting killed by what they thought was an incompetent leader.[/sp] [sp]Movies where the plot is advanced or conflict is introduced by characters not communicating with each other is crappy writing.[/sp] [sp]Also, what the fuck was that scene where Leia force-pulls herself back to the air lock?[/sp] [sp]I kept waiting for them to kill her off[/sp], [sp]and the scene where they kept flashing between her and kylo felt so poorly edited that I was sure they had jammed it in there last minute to kill her off since Carrie Fisher died, but then they didn't kill her so I don't know why it felt so poorly edited[/sp] [sp]Like so much of the movies felt really awkward and didn't make any sense, compositionally[/sp][/QUOTE] I feel like the script underwent a lot of rewrites - that's pretty much the only explanation I can come up with as to why [sp]huge parts of the plot went literally nowhere.[/sp]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52998118][sp]The whole plot line where Rose and Finn go and try to disable the hyperspace tracking was totally pointless.[/sp] [sp]Not only did they not end up needing that technology, if Finn and Rose had stayed put, The rebel fleet wouldn't have been destroyed because they wouldn't have gotten captured and their info wouldn't have been sold by Benicio Del Toro.[/sp][/QUOTE] That's the whole point though ? [sp]It's an awful plan with awful repercussions. The theme of the film is "mistakes" as stated rather plainly by Yoda, and everyone fucks up to some degree. It's a middle point story where the convictions and character flaws of each is tested, similar to how ESB handled its story, ie with people making a crapton of mistakes and ending up causing large amounts of damage, but not without completely wiping away all hope for the future[/sp] [QUOTE=proboardslol;52998118][sp]Movies where the plot is advanced or conflict is introduced by characters not communicating with each other is crappy writing.[/sp][/quote] [sp]Not if the whole story hinges on characters developing based on these flaws. It's crappy writing when it's used as a simple means to move the plot onwards but this was not the case here, because there are many other ways in which the plot could have gone in much lazier, much more predictable fashion. If you've watched series like Breaking Bad, on which Rian Johnson worked btw, the entire plot revolves around characters being petty, awful and not communicating, which causes them to go into a downward spiral. It's something that people do in real life, it's just as self-destructive in real life, and imo it's nice to see a film embrace that as a form of drama that gives the character a much needed human element and makes the drama more relatable.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52998121]The Dark Knight Toy Story 2 Empire Strikes Back The Godfather Part 2 The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (and For A Few Dollars More) Terminator 2 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Aliens Road Warrior (and Fury Road) Evil Dead 2 X-Men 2 Prisoner of Azkaban Skyfall Dawn of the Dead Mission Impossible Desperado Kill Bill 2 Hellboy 2 Shrek 2[/QUOTE] - The Dark knight was good on its own and was better than Batman begins - Toy story 2 was okay but 1 & 3 were better - Never saw the godfather so I can't comment - The good, the bad, and the ugly is good on its own. I've never seen whatever the movie that came before it is - Terminator 2 is objectively better than T1 and you could watch T2 without ever seeing T1 and you wouldn't be missing out on much - The wrath of Khan may rely on the show but not on Star Trek 1 - Alien is better than Aliens. There, I said it. - Road Warrior is better than Mad Max - I didn't see Evil Dead 2, but from what I understand 1 & 2 have little to do with each other - Prisoner of Azkaban isn't good because it relies on chamber of secrets; to understand the film you may need to watch 1 & 2, but prisoner of Azkaban is good on its own (the best in the series) - Never saw skyfall but I don't like James Bond movies in general - Never saw it - You don't need to have seen any of the Mission impossible movies to see the most recent installment - Never saw it - Kill Bill 1 is 1000x better than Kill Bill 2 - Never seen either - You don't need to have seen Shrek 1 to enjoy Shrek 2

All of these films objectively "rely" on another film if only on virtue of their setting, characters and chronology. They're not necessarily better than the original let alone objectively so but they're still not "shitty", which is my point.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52998127]That's the whole point though ? [sp]It's an awful plan with awful repercussions. The theme of the film is "mistakes" as stated rather plainly by Yoda, and everyone fucks up to some degree. It's a middle point story where the convictions and character flaws of each is tested, similar to how ESB handled its story, ie with people making a crapton of mistakes and ending up causing large amounts of damage, but not without completely wiping away all hope for the future[/sp] [sp]Not if the whole story hinges on characters developing based on these flaws. It's crappy writing when it's used as a simple means to move the plot onwards but this was not the case here, because there are many other ways in which the plot could have gone in much lazier, much more predictable fashion. If you've watched series like Breaking Bad, on which Rian Johnson worked btw, the entire plot revolves around characters being petty, awful and not communicating, which causes them to go into a downward spiral. It's something that people do in real life, it's just as self-destructive in real life, and imo it's nice to see a film embrace that as a form of drama that gives the character a much needed human element and makes the drama more relatable.[/sp][/QUOTE] [sp]But it just doesn't make any sense for a military commander to not tell her subordinates about the escape plan. If she had told everyone, literally none of the conflict in the movie would have happened, and it just doesn't make sense for her not to tell anyone.[/sp] [editline]22nd December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;52998134]All of these films objectively "rely" on another film if only on virtue of their setting, characters and chronology. They're not necessarily better than the original let alone objectively so but they're still not "shitty", which is my point.[/QUOTE] Isn't that my point and his point? These movies don't rely on the previous to be good; they're good on their own and in some cases better than the original (T2,

Going back on Daisy Ridley, its disappointing she's meant to be the main character but constantly taken over by supporting characters or other characters due to their acting ability. She really needs to step up.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52997945]My opinion is that if a film relies on another one to be a good movie, it's a shitty movie.[/QUOTE] if its intended to have a sequel from the beginning thats kind of an unfair assesment is fellowship of the ring or two towers bad movies because they leave half their plot threads dangling for the already planned sequels? [editline]22nd December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;52998138]Isn't that my point and his point? These movies don't rely on the previous to be good; they're good on their own and in some cases better than the original (T2,[/QUOTE] no, its not He was replying to someone saying that he believes The Last Jedi might be regarded better once the final movies comes out because it may resolve some of the half-baked storylines and dangling plot threads, since as a trilogy the final part of the series has already been planned out and many of the story elements of the middle movie may carry over to it. That's not quite the same as a sequel relying on the original, especially if that sequel wasn't planned in the first place when the first movie was being made.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52998138][sp]But it just doesn't make any sense for a military commander to not tell her subordinates about the escape plan. If she had told everyone, literally none of the conflict in the movie would have happened, and it just doesn't make sense for her not to tell anyone.[/sp][/QUOTE] First of all, [sp]need to know basis is a thing and is frequently employed in the military for many reasons. The morale of the resistance was likely more important than having everyone be aware of the plan so Holdo only tells a limited amount of people.[/sp] Second, [sp]Holdo does not trust Poe Dameron with the information. She tells him to fuck off, albeit more politely, when she first appears because his reckless actions have caused the resistance fleet to lose a considerable amount. The film literally starts with Poe losing his mutual trust for his commanders and getting demoted, so no one in upper command trust him with anything for most of the film.[/sp] This is information that is clearly displayed in the film and often spelled out by characters. [editline]22nd December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;52998138]Isn't that my point and his point? These movies don't rely on the previous to be good; they're good on their own and in some cases better than the original (T2,[/QUOTE] The guy was saying sequels are inherently shitty because they rely on another film.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52998121]The Dark Knight Toy Story 2 Empire Strikes Back The Godfather Part 2 The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (and For A Few Dollars More) Terminator 2 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Aliens Road Warrior (and Fury Road) Evil Dead 2 X-Men 2 Prisoner of Azkaban Skyfall Dawn of the Dead Mission Impossible Desperado Kill Bill 2 Hellboy 2 Shrek 2[/QUOTE] Most of these don't really "rely" on the past film. Most of these are self contained stories with beginning/middle/end in them. They might use some information from the past film, but that's not essential to working out what's what.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52998134]All of these films objectively "rely" on another film if only on virtue of their setting, characters and chronology. They're not necessarily better than the original let alone objectively so but they're still not "shitty", which is my point.[/QUOTE] Well to be fair, his precise wording was [quote]My opinion is that if a film relies on another one to be a good movie, it's a shitty movie.[/quote] Obviously the ideal would be a sequel/prequel that can still stand on its own fairly well. Although that criteria is hard to use since most people won't approach it with a clean mind. May as well just more directly say "It's a good movie, but you'll want to have seen X first" instead of "it's shitty because it depends on another film."

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52998030]There are plenty of middle piece movies that are great standing alone. The Dark Knight, for example, is an excellent middle movie that has no dependencies on its previous film or sequel. [editline]22nd December 2017[/editline] I don't think those are comparable?[/QUOTE] It isn't comparable if the sequels are conceived after the first one is successful but if the series was always supposed to be a trilogy, why should it not be judged as a whole instead of just individually? How is that different from a short TV series?

In my opinion a film [I]can't[/I] be good simply [I]because[/I] it relies on another movie. A film can rely on another film to make sense, but it has nothing to do with wether it's good or bad. How the film relates to the other film would absolutely be taken into consideration when judging said film but it's not like a good film is gonna make a bad film good or anything of the sort.

[QUOTE=The Jack;52998209]Most of these don't really "rely" on the past film. Most of these are self contained stories with beginning/middle/end in them. They might use some information from the past film, but that's not essential to working out what's what.[/QUOTE] No, they actually really do rely on plot lines set up in the first film The Dark Knight isn't a stand alone film, because it specifically deals with one arc of one Batmans life. We need the context of the first film for the second film to have it's meaning, his journey isn't self contained in one film. Toy Story 2 as a film relies on the ending of the first film to happen. If the second movie just started here, we wouldn't have a story that is as strong as what we got. Empire Strikes Back is probably the key point example of why you're not right in saying "most", if at all correct. It literally wouldn't work as the first film in the series. It relies entirely on pre-existing concepts that were introduced in the first movie. It piles on top of that in creative and thoughtful ways but still relies on it. The Godfather is also a great example and one could easily write a essay on the subject based on just this one movie. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly(For a few Dollars More) is again a continuation of a story that left off on a cliffhanger more or less. I'll stop there, as the majority of these films rely on pre-existing knowledge, story lines, characters, plot arcs, or cliff hangers that the omission of would seriously harm the movies over all continuity. I don't think that's a bad thing though. I like multi film stories.

I don't see what's bad about movies that rely on other movies. Isn't it too limiting to the art form to think you should always avoid making a film a chapter of something bigger? It's not even that big a deviation from what we have in books, or TV shows

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52998134]All of these films objectively "rely" on another film if only on virtue of their setting, characters and chronology. They're not necessarily better than the original let alone objectively so but they're still not "shitty", which is my point.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;52998121]The Dark Knight Toy Story 2 Empire Strikes Back The Godfather Part 2 The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (and For A Few Dollars More) Terminator 2 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Aliens Road Warrior (and Fury Road) [B]Evil Dead 2[/B] X-Men 2 Prisoner of Azkaban Skyfall Dawn of the Dead Mission Impossible Desperado Kill Bill 2 Hellboy 2 Shrek 2[/QUOTE] Dont know if thats a good example.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52998239]The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly(For a few Dollars More) is again a continuation of a story that left off on a cliffhanger more or less[/QUOTE] Huh? A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly are all completely separate stories with recurring actors playing new characters. There's no cliffhanger between them, the films are all standalone. In any case, I can't think of any films that seemed mediocre on release but after a sequel came out were perceived as better, which was the overall point, and sequels that don't do anything new are perceived as riding their predecessor's coattails. Themes and plot aside, a sequel or midquel should stand on its own as a media work.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52998318]Huh? A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly are all completely separate stories with recurring actors playing new characters. There's no cliffhanger between them, the films are all standalone.[/QUOTE] Shit. You're right, I got that confused with a different Eastwood movie. I don't really watch much Eastwood anymore but that's my bad.

I've always been curious to see how the original star wars movies would have been received had the internet existed at the time.

[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;52998126]I feel like the script underwent a lot of rewrites - that's pretty much the only explanation I can come up with as to why [sp]huge parts of the plot went literally nowhere.[/sp][/QUOTE] Either that or bits were lost in the edit. I vaguely remember an interview with Rian Johnson saying they had lots more footage and all this other stuff they wanted to put in, but it was already stuffed so full that they had to make pretty big cuts just to get to 2h30m

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52998281]Dont know if thats a good example.[/QUOTE] Evil Dead 2 has a really odd relation to the first one in terms of how it starts. But if you want a clearer example, there's Army of Darkness.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52998239]No, they actually really do rely on plot lines set up in the first film The Dark Knight isn't a stand alone film, because it specifically deals with one arc of one Batmans life. We need the context of the first film for the second film to have it's meaning, his journey isn't self contained in one film. [...] The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly(For a few Dollars More) is again a continuation of a story that left off on a cliffhanger more or less.[/QUOTE] Gonna have to disagree with these two. I saw Dark Knight without knowing it was a sequel to Batman Begins (which I never saw until after), and I thoroughly enjoyed the film and there was nothing really left out for me. Similarly, I didn't know The Good[...] was even part of a series until reading this thread. Most of the other films that have been discussed I can't give a firsthand counter to, because I had never seen them, or I saw them after the films before them. Though I will say that Fury Road is so far removed from the Mel Gibson trilogy that I don't think you need to have seen them to get and enjoy Fury Road. That being said, I will readily grant that Empire Strikes Back, XMen 2, Azkaban, Hellboy 2, Terminator 2, Star Trek 2, and Shrek 2 are all pretty hard to fully digest without their previous films, since they don't make an effort to establish any of the characters. I can't say for certain, but I personally think that Aliens, Skyfall, and Mission Impossible (up to MI:5; I haven't seen any past that) are able to stand up well on their own. I feel that their connections to the previous films are very minor (Aliens and Skyfall) and/or are explained well in the first act narrative (Aliens and Mission Impossible), and so the previous films aren't a requirement to understand them. I can't comment on the other films in that list, because I haven't seen them. And I can't comment on Toy Story 2, because I honestly can't remember much about it. :v: All in my opinion, of course.

Without having seen TLJ, I thought FN was the main character for TFA. Was hoping he could use the force, honestly. The guy's just way more relatable than Rey. I didn't find her believable, she was too young to be the master of everything, but too old to be playing with helmets and waiting on her parents. Also wrong choice of accent. FN had motivations and goals.