Chen G.
-
Posts
9,822 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Chen G.
-
-
No. But it wouldn't have workd without Sir Alec Guinness.
-
4 hours ago, Holko said:
To the space scene: I await the explanation what would stop Leia in her tracks. There is no atmosphere in space to slow the inertia she got from the sudden pressure differnece pushing her out.
It’s a fantasy set in space. It’s not a science-fiction movie!
Really, my issue with the scene is the fake “OMG, a main character is dead” moment. It’s a cheap trick to get a rise out of the audience.
6 hours ago, Mattris said:Her shortsightedness to plan the overall direction of these films...
None of the Star Wars trilogies were ever planned out from the outset. You could make the argument that they should have pulled a Lord of the Rings and shot the whole trilogy as one production under one writer/director/producer - I would even agree, but you can’t say this “making it up as one’s going along” is out-of-character for Star Wars as a series.
-
I don’t think they should. But mostly I don’t think they shouldn’t be.
Appreciating the female form, as well as a woman’s mental faculties are not mutually exclusive.
-
5 minutes ago, Stefancos said:
Sexist!
Hey!
Where was that when I objected to equality-of-outcome of the cast in these films going forward; or when I lamented that these "strong female characters" aren't being sexualized?
-
10 hours ago, crocodile said:
But wouldn't that be precisely what maks it less shocking in a Gibson film?
In something like the even-more-violent Apocalypto, which opens with gore upfront, yes. Hacksaw however opens quite tame, with the battle only beginning at the midpoint. It hits the audience like a truck!
My memory of Saving Private Ryan is that its the opening that’s the goriest part of the film. They're polar opposites in that respect.
10 hours ago, Nick1066 said:Spielberg's gore is cinematic. Gibson's is visceral. Gut wrenchingly so. I don't think I could watch Hacksaw Ridge again for that reason.
That.
Its funny, when I looked up hebrew-written reviews to Apocalypto, there was considerable digust expressed over the gore, with one critic imagining what Gibson's daily routine on such a film must be like: "well, what do we have today? two ripped hearts, a bitten-off face and an impalmenet! hurray!"
-
10 minutes ago, crocodile said:
Ah that Mel Gibson again...
To be clear I'm not comparing the films in any way. I haven't watched Hacksaw since the theater, and I haven't watched Ryan since the early 2000s. I'm just comparing the gore - which is definitely much more Gibson's forte than it is Spieberg's.
-
10 minutes ago, Quintus said:
The astounding melee bookends simply power everything else through. After those sequences of conflict, little wonder nobody walked out talking about the saggy middle afterwards.
Yeah, films can get a lot of milleage out of a good "James Bond opening."
15 minutes ago, crocodile said:Completely forgot how gory it is as well.
I haven't watched it in years. But having seen Hacksaw Ridge, Saving Private Ryan will probably look quite tame by comparison when I get around to revisit it.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right.
-
I said "kinda".
The original Mary Sue is a character from a short Star-Trek fanfic, and yes, she goes by the traits you marked, as well as by meeting a tragic end.
And while I don't mind Rey and I don't think she represents a particularly toxic brand of feminism, I also think her many, many strengths are narrativelly convenient. Her saving grace is that, internally, she is full of self-doubt in her capabilities, which is always nice in a Hero's Journey story.
-
7 minutes ago, Holko said:
he hasn't bitched about Rey being a Mary Sue yet.
Although she still kind of is.
All that's left is for her to die in IX.
28 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:12 is the most wipes?
Its actually the least.
-
5 minutes ago, John said:
Agreed. Empire maintains a nice balance between being both visually striking and natural looking at the same time.
Watching it recently I was struck with how dynamic the lighting choices were. Just like Johnson did away with wipes for more clever transitions, so too did Kirshner have the snow storm white-out the screen as a form of transition between Han rescuing Luke to the search efforts.
Large parts of the fight between Vader and Luke is in silhouette, with all manner of atmospherics such as the fog and ambient blue light in the background.
-
4 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:
Where to begin? I like how it’s shot for starters. It’s visually the most striking film in the franchise since the original. The use of colour and texture is fascinating and is used to great effect.
Empire Strikes Back sends its regards. The original is actually very plain in terms of cinematography: high-key lighting, not very "pushed" on close-ups, not an awful lot of camera movement, etc...
-
1 hour ago, Mattris said:
To anyone who "likes" The Last Jedi, could you please explain why? I'm genuinely curious.
I like the film, but not all that much, though: I've watched it three times (I always watch a film twice to really form an opinion on it) but I've had no desire to revisit it since. Whether that says something to the quality of the film itself or the fact that I'm getting fed up with new Star Wars films in general, I don't know.
Externally, its a competent movie: for the most part, it was well-acted, well-photographed, had good effects, etcetra. I particularly like a lot of the transitions. Its a usual Johnson device: Finn asks where is Rey, cut to...Rey. And again from Kylo's smashed helmet to Rey telling Luke that "there's no light left in Kylo Ren." After Rey pleads her case to Luke, we cut to Leia, implying that she sensed it all, etc...
I don't get what's there to be surprised about regarding Luke's story. It was easy to guess, based on The Force Awakens alone, that he would be shown as disillusioned with the Jedi and would be initially unwilling to train Rey, only to through her rediscover his vitality. What I did appreciate was how things turned out between him and young Ben Solo - perhaps the boldest move in this film. I also love the moment between Luke and Leia. Its wonderfully touching, complete with their theme and everything.
There is of course plently I didn't like - none of it has anything to do with SJWs or what they did with the world of Star Wars, but has everything to do with storytelling: some bad comedy, some rough edges (production-wise), a total failure of a subplot in Finn and Rose's story, and two climaxes that can't help but feel like too much for one film. I do think that people who defend this film against the likes of you have left this film's shortcomings (of which there are many) by the wayside, much as you left its positive aspects to the side.
-
They were hired to bring gravitas and a sense of credibility and class to this bizarre universe.
-
I wouldn't like it if I didn't find something to like about the whole.
Again, thinking about it in terms of Bilbo as the protagonist and Thorin and co. as the supporting cast, I can see where you'd get that impression; but if you reverse that, I think it works, because it lends itself to this mould of storytelling: trilogy, long movies, grandly scaled plot, large-scale action sequences, dour tone, etcetra...
It also changes this story from the all-too-well trodden road of the Hero's Journey which Bilbo goes through, and turns it into a story thick with patriotic subtext. I'm not a patriotic man, but I could sympathize with the Dwarves' conviction and love for their homeland and some of the most moving moments of the trilogy for me have nothing to do with a relationship between characters and everything to do with the connection between the Dwarves and their homeland - like the way they behold it from across the misty lake.
Also, by choosing to infuse the story with this theme, they've given the company a much more noble cause, but a provincial one, nonetheless and - as such - one that is open to subversion. When Bard and Thorin argue, it doesn't feel an argument laden on any one side. If anything, the time spent in Laketown had made us see more of the value in Bard's point-of-view.
I actually find that all the issues to be had with this trilogy exist in a far greater extent in Jackson's King Kong: its much more poorly-paced than any of these three films, has many more characters that don't feel as well realized or whose stories aren't as well resolved, has poorer special effects - and I still like that movie, as well.
So to me, The Hobbit is a step in the right direction from Kong, not to mention The Lovely Bones. Had Jackson had more time to shape the film as he truly wanted - I believe it would have been much better.
-
2 hours ago, mstrox said:
Say what you will about the prequels, but Lucas never kowtowed to fan demands and frustrated the living hell out of them with the prequels. Then when Disney and Kennedy came along (and by came along, I mean “paid literally billions of dollars to actually own it and not just claim personal ownership because they spent a bunch of money on books and comics and video games and LEGO and owned little plastic Droopy McCool in the eighties”), all of a sudden Lucas and the prequels were sancrosanct, God’s perfect fandom angel, hallowed be thy name.
Added to that, as well, is the notion that Disney's Star Wars suffers from not having Lucas to help shape the overarching story, which again is nonesense, as no such plan was ever laid before any of the previous trilogies.
So how are these movies different to Empire Strikes Back which Lucas didn't write nor direct?
-
9 hours ago, Batman's Diet Coke said:
All the main SW women have small boobs.
So much so that it almost feels like Daisy Ridley was in part selected for the role based on this.
Kathleen Kennedy obviously thinks that strong female characters being objects of desire is anathema, which is unfortunate.
-
4 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:
Oh crikey, the name of the book is The Hobbit.
Its The Hobbit only by name.
Its Thorin's story, and its all the better for it.
-
Again, as long as it is from Tolkien's writing, lets not fuss about which of his pieces its from:
"The Hobbit" (1966) is Bilbo-centric.
"Durin's Folk" is Thorin-centric.
Jackson pulled more from the latter, you'd have pulled from the former. Since they both deal with the same story, it was very much within Jacksons' prerogative to choose the way he did, and I like it better that way. You'd have liked it the other way around - that's fair. But both are faitful adaptations, and its not fair to criticise the one by comparing it to the other or the other's source material - the ol' apples and kumquats comparison.
Like I said, I was glad to learn that there's a good fan-cut that reinstitutes the narrative of The Hobbit (1966) for the likes of you - to each his own.
-
Disagree.
Thorin is a much better character than Bilbo.
-
3 hours ago, mstrox said:
They "serioused" it up way too much to try to bring it in line with LOTR, they stretched it into 3 movies.
To my mind, all of this is happened organically once the focus of the story shifted from Bilbo to Thorin. As the prologue to An Unexpected Journey clearly illustrates, this is the story of Thorin and company: its their homeland that needs reclaiming, their vengenance to be had on the dragon (at least, until Girion's story is told) and on Azog and the Orcs, and their grievances to settle with Thranduil.
Well, Thorin's story is much more in the wheelhouse of The Lord of the Rings: its grim (essentially, its a tragedy), its epic and it influences the War of the Ring. As such, it also lends itself to a trilogy in a way that Bilbo's story doesn't.
And this Thorin-centric version of the story is again not an invention of Peter Jackson - it comes directly from the appendix Durin's Folk. Again, as long as it is Tolkien, I'm not going to fuss over which part of his writing its from.
2 hours ago, Nick1066 said:mainly because his vision is so radically different from what i had in my head when reading it. Which is ironic given that I thought he nailed LOTR.
I guess this is a key issue: when I sat down to watch An Unexpected Journey, its been a long, long time since I last read The Hobbit. What I was reading often at the time was The Lord of the Rings. I've found the appendix Durin's Folk enthralling - the only Dwarvish story in Tolkien's entire legendarium and it provided such a good exploration of what makes the Dwarves the way they are - their animosity with the Orcs, their grim history, their exile - and when I sat down to watch - that's what I got.
I was glad to learn that, for people who want just The Hobbit, there's a good "Tolkien" fan-edit. But as it stands, The Hobbit trilogy could just as well be renamed "Durin's Folk". That's the piece of Tolkien's writing that dictates the point-of-view of the trilogy and, as a result, the scale and tone. If ever I was to look for a fan-edit, I would look for a Dwarvish, Bilbo-less cut, if any.
3 hours ago, Holko said:Guillermo's 2-part Hobbit would probably have fit the spirit of it very well.
From what I gather, Guillermo's dulogy would still have featured the Dol Guldur subplot; Tauriel and Legolas were to be present; and the rivalry with Azog was to be featured, as well. Yes, the films would have probably dwelled on these elements less, but I also think that presenting them in an even more rushed manner would have been even worst. Also, the idea of a "bridge film" which was tossed around in the Del-Toro days sounds horrible. And his taste in design was all wrong for Middle Earth.
-
24 minutes ago, SF1_freeze said:
for them the backstory and worldbuilding is just there as an unimportant brainless backdrop?
Backstory is for characters, not for the world itself. As for "world-building", a good movie has none. It tells the audience only what they need to know to understand the story being told. Maybe the occasional flourish like Han recalling off-screen adventures in The Empire Strikes Back, but no more than that.
I'm not saying the stage isn't important - but we shouldn't expect our movies to get all but bogged down in the staging, as you would suggest.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
18 minutes ago, SF1_freeze said:without its shitty explanations on the backstory you have no clue about the real state of the galaxy during the films TFA and TLJ.
WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE STATE OF THE FRIGGIN' GALAXY!
We care about the story of the characters. The state of the Galaxy is the background, or the stage, upon which this story takes place. Nothing less, nothing more. You can't make a movie about a fictional world: otherwise, you'd have mockumentaries set in the Naboo, which you don't have.
Star Wars isn't about the galaxy far-far away - its in it.
Besides, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to fill in the blanks: Clealry not all the Imperial Forces were defeated, and the surviving Imperials became The First Order. Simple. That's all we need. We don't want a 100-page essay about galactic politics for a text crawl.
-
Yeah, I mean, I get why you'd do choir, special instruments and/or percussion separately, but every section of the orchestra?
Star Wars Disenchantment
in General Discussion
Posted
@Mattris, listen to the man!
First thing, this film (again out of Johnson's desire to surprise us) uses Rey as a false protagonist. The main character instead being Luke Skywalker. He undergoes the greatest character trasnformation, and its his character transformation that resolves the problem at the film's true climax, there being a false one (again, out of the need to surprise us, the audience) with Snoke, Holdo and Phasma earlier in the film.
Thinking about it, I am having trouble defining Rey's character transformation. Maybe its just that I haven't watched the film in quite some time (like I said, there's something about the film that left me unenthused to ever rewatch it) but I seem to recall that her story throughout this film has to do with her becoming disillusioned with Luke and with Kylo (having grown to trust him, falsly, after the midpoint). But that's doesn't change her personality, which is what character transformation is all about.
Kylo Ren does transform, but its mostly offscreen. Unlike Michael Tucker who reads Kylo's conflict between good and evil as genuine, I see it quite clearly as an act he is putting on for Rey to get her by his side when he dispatches of Snoke, so she can help him do away with the guards. A tell-tale sign is that, during the battle with the guards, while Rey is helping Kylo, the same cannot be said for Kylo returning the favor, even though the camera clearly shows him seeing her in a tight spot. Its still a transformation of sorts (from loyal apprentice to usurper), but it happens offscreen.
The less is said about Finn and Rose the better, but the former of the two does trasnform, albeit not enough to justify his time-consuming and utterly boring subplot. Tucker hinges this ineffective character transformation upon an excised scene, but to my mind even with that scene re-instated it wouldn't have worked. Even when Finn "tries to run" it isn't to defect from the resistance (as Rose thinks) but to get the signal that's meant to call Rey back to them from what has clearly become a death trap. Even if he hasn't joined the ressistance directly, he joined them by default, through sharing their ideals.
Outside of Luke, Poe has one the most defined character transformations in the film: from a hot-headed, rushed, narrow-minded pilot to a thoughtfull, responsible leader.
How are these movies ruined to the average filmgoer? They don't see this bickering any more than they see the supposedly-offensive nature of The Last Jedi.