The Rise of Skywalker Star Wars IX The Rise of Skywalker (JJ Abrams 2019)

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The Ring Theory runs strong in his family...

[Disco Stu 15,495]

What on earth are y'all babbling on about?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Arpy 4,145]

No wonder he called the furthest reaches of the galaxy the 'Outer-rim'. His ring theory is huge!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I like TFA for its vibrant characters, entertaining action scenes, great score, and it just has a general tone I find satisfying and fun to revisit.  Good movie.  Not perfect.

[Chen G. 3,943]

"Good movie" is just about right. It is good. And not in a mediocre kind of way. It's a legitimately good movie. But I think a lot of people do confuse that with greatness, of which it little to none.

 

As for Ring theory, it's just the idea of callbacks dailed up to the extreme. An excuse for George Lucas to run out of ideas.

[Arpy 4,145]

The Ring Theory is a little bit more complex than callbacks. I agree with Mr. Plinkett's analysis of TFA and the Ring Theory in which he doesn't think that Lucas crafted the films with the theory in mind, but comparisons and callbacks can be made nonetheless because familiar elements are ideal to reuse and remind people of what they've already seen. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

Lucas made each of his prequels "rhyme" with each of the originals. There are also callbacks from the later prequels to the earlier ones, and Return of the Jedi also rhymes heavily with the original Star Wars.

 

So this idea of parallels between each opposite episode of each trilogy kind of falls apart under scrutiny. The callbacks are just not as deliberate as that theory makes them out to be.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Where is @Will to defend his beloved theory?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

13 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Where is @Will to defend his beloved theory?

 

He's 15 and it's Saturday morning.  He is almost assuredly asleep.  Sometimes I kinda miss having the ability to sleep until noon.  And it really is an ability pretty unique to the young.

[Arpy 4,145]

The theory applied to Star Wars doesn't work. Watch all six films and their making of documentaries and see if you can discern the theory was a grand plan by Lucas. Lucas writes the scripts a few months advance or into pre-production of the films! It's simply giving him too much credit for reusing similar visuals and arcs! 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,943]

Yes. To think that these films were mapped out from the beginning is wholly untrue, for any of the three trilogies or the saga as a whole.

[Bilbo 3,709]

But the idea of ring composition in ancient times wasn’t exactly some master stroke either.

 

It existed because poems such as the Iliad were passed down in the oral tradition so the “ring” bits where there to help the poet remember what happened next. 

 

The ring theory in Star Wars doesn’t prove the brilliance of anything. Just that Lucas, whether by accident or design, included age old story telling techniques.

 

i do think Lucas did the call backs better than Jackson did in the Hobbit though. 

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

@Will! @Will! Where art thou? The Prequels needs thou!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

50 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

 

i do think Lucas did the call backs better than Jackson did in the Hobbit though. 

 

 

Lol

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

50 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

i do think Lucas did the call backs better than Jackson did in the Hobbit though. 

 

 

They were certainly more subtle (and less numerous) that's for sure.

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

 

The Ring Theory is that Naomi Watts burned my VHS copy of Batman. I have no other explanation for its disappearance.

[Chen G. 3,943]

55 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

They were certainly more subtle (and less numerous) that's for sure.

 

 

Were they though? I rewatched the Hobbit a lot, and there are very few moments that I think of as callbacks. There are a lot of revisited locales in the first film, but that was inevitable. In fact, part of what I outright love about the later two entries is just how outlandish and unique the Wilderland and the Lonely Mountain are, compared to what we've seen before.

 

Furthermore, the proof is in the pudding: callbacks are a means of lending cohesion. Ultimately, In The prequels the cohesion is so luckluster than Lucas had to retrofit the originals to achieve it, and it still doesn't work! The Hobbit flows into Fellowship of the Ring almost seemlessly. That's the true test of callbacks.

[Fancyarcher 350]

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Even from the outset we knew it was going to be a lot like Empire. JJ left the story at the starting point of Empire and the choice of a more cerebral director a-la Kirshner was another sign post. The marketing is pushing a darker tone for this episode which is straight out of Empire, too.

 

There are even structural parallels: it seems like, early on in the film, the rebels will be driven out of another remote sanctuary in a battle (with Imperial Walkeds and all) that ultimately takes off into space as they flee and Rose and Finn will break out from the fleet. There are multiple storylines (Empire had two) and there are parallels between Luke and Rey's story to that of Luke's time with Yoda, while Rose and Finn are evocative of Han and Leia, even if they don't go down the romantic avenue. Hell, now that I think about it, Canto Bight and that shady-Benicio-del-Toro-character we'll meet therein sounds a hell of a lot like Lando and his Palace.

 

Hopefully it'll not just be a copy though, even though Johnson has been basically saying it may be in interviews. That would be quite unfortunately.

 

8 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

But... But the Ring Theory!

The prequel trilogy is just misunderstood. It's independent experimental art-house films, that happened to get wide-released in theaters, don't you see? 

[Chen G. 3,943]

To be fair, I can enjoy the prequels (well, two of them) in spite of all of their flaws.

 

If one isn't the kind of fan that deifys the "original trilogy", one should be able to enjoy Phantom Menace on the adventure and spectacle level, and Revenge of the Sith on the narrative level.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Were they though? I rewatched the Hobbit a lot, and there are very few moments that I think of as callbacks. There are a lot of revisited locales in the first film, but that was inevitable. Part of what I outright love about the later two entries is just how outlandish and unique the Wilderland and the Lonely Mountain are.

 

Callbacks are a means of lending cohesion. I The prequels the cohesion is so luckluster than Lucas had to retrofit the originals to achieve it, and it still doesn't work! The Hobbit flows into Fellowship of the Ring almost seemlessly.

 

I agree that the prequels lack any kind of meaningful cohesion with the OT...whereas The Hobbit certainly does a better job of it w/LOTR.

 

But as far as the callbacks themselves go...those in The Hobbit are forced, at best, and at worst reduce the impact of certain scenes from LOTR. For example, the Gandalf growing/booming voice schtick ("I am not trying to rob you") that worked so well in LOTR just seems cheap and ineffective in The Hobbit ("If I say Bilbo Baggins is a burglar..."). It's also just so obvious as to almost be embarrassing.  I don't think there's anything so obvious in the PT.  Then there's the thing with Gandalf slamming down his staff and it fizzling out,which is a callback disguised as a really cheap joke. And it's the worst kind of "in joke" because it's almost breaking the 4th wall. All that's missing is Gandalf winking at the camera.  Hmmmm....the there's shot of the angelic Tauriel playing healer to Kili ala Arwen & Frodo, etc. By the time BOTFA rolled around, I was expecting Bard to say "This army" and a bunch of undead to magically appear. Those things worked, and beautifully, in LOTR, but in The Hobbit they fell flat.

 

Lucas, for on the other hand, just did things like showing the interior of the Tantive IV, which was certainly a callback but done with at least some amount of restraint and subtlety.

 

Don't get me wrong, The Hobbit movies, flawed as they are, IMO are vastly superior to the PT.  But I think Lucas actually showed restraint in the number of callbacks he did, and I give him credit for at least trying to give those films their own look and tone separate from the OT.  Jackson made the right call in keeping the look and sound of LOTR, but went too far IMO in those fan service moments.

[Fancyarcher 350]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

To be fair, I can enjoy the prequels (well, two of them) in spite of all of their flaws.

 

If one isn't the kind of fan that deifys the original trilogy, one should be able to enjoy Phantom Menace on the adventure and spectacle level, and Revenge of the Sith on the narrative level.

 

I'd say none of them are objectively very good films though, and The Phantom Menace does have some cool moments, but it spends most of its time trying to really hard to pander to younger audiences, and as a result has really dumb moments. Revenge of The Sith is very entertaining though. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Chen G. 3,943]

The colors in the Hobbir aren't over saturated per se, it's just the quality of the cameras and the ungraded image used in long parts of An Unexpected Journey to improve the picture quality. Nolan has gradually brought ungraded imagery back, and large sections of An Unexpected Journey are a clear product of that. It does gradually becomes surprisingly muted: There are parts of the Desolation of Smaug that are almost monochromatic. The Battle of the Five Armies fades into the color palette of Fellowship well enough.

 

And yes, there is a lot of CGI, but there's still a hell of a lot of practical effects to marvel at: long portions of the Forest River scene were shot in actual rivers and in a practical studio river! Laketown is an incredible practical set, as is Dale. And big parts of Smaug's Lair, with the mounds of gold and all!

 

Nick, most of the cases you brought up are of a comedic nature and comedy is much more subjective than dramatic elements: it is in fact considered the most subjective of genres.

 

When I think about callbacks in the prequels I think of multiple quotes of the line "I have a bad feeling about this" in what are clearly dire situations: Anakin and co. about to be devoured by the monsters in the arena, or him and Obi Wan crash landing into Grievous' ship.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

As for PJ keeping the look of LOTR... Never quite understood people who believe that. Sure, some of the designs stay true to what was established in the LOTR trilogy, but some of the new stuff (Beorn, some of the Dwarves, Azog... ). And that's not even mentioning the overall look of the picture: overuse of bloom, overgraded colors, overuse of CG... Yuck!

 

I thought about this right after I posted, and you're right. Jackson tried to keep the look of LOTR, but The Hobbit just ends up looking more slick and much less lived in than its predecessor.  I do think the basic design aesthetics are the same, it's just that everything ends up looking a bit...filmish.  I never thought the props and costumes in LOTR, for example, looked like they were made in a studio, but in The Hobbit all it looks like it just came off the shelf. It's all still first rate craftsmanship, but it's just not as convincing.  When I saw AUJ the first time with the  HFR, I thought that was it, but it goes beyond that.  

 

Actually, the similarities in the kind of mistakes both Jackson and Lucas made in their prequels is pretty striking, and basically come down to the same problems IMO...hubris, boredom with the material, and no one around to say "Um, no".

[Chen G. 3,943]

I think the comparison is not really called for. I don't think Peter Jackson is an uncolaborative filmmaker in the way that George Lucas was.

 

After all, he is only one of four screenwriters and is probably the least dominant in terms of writing. He spends a LOT of time with his actors and allows them to have input as to their motivation and even their dialogue. They would literally rewrite the screenplay over and over again based on input from the cast. Lines like "If you don't like my burglar" (which is a good example of subtle callbacks because it also recalls Gandalf getting angry) were put into the screenplay on the set.

 

If people weren't in a position to say no, we'd end up with a flirting scene between Tauriel and Kili upon the moment she rescued him from the spiders, with PJ's awful Laketown cameo, etc...

 

Is it flawed? Yes. But they are still damn good movies. They just didn't start with a bang. But within the context of a nine-hour trilogy, or the entire sextet, I'm fine with a slow two hours opening. From the last hour of An Unexpected Journey going forward it really picks up.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They're really not that bad.

[Chen G. 3,943]

They're not bad at all. That a film has flaws doesn't make it bad. Good continuity (within the trilogy and as part of the whole sextet), great characters (which entails on-point casting and great acting), an interesting story, good cinematography, some amazing production value (sets, some incredible CG, sound design and score). That I can find emotionally resonant moments in each of the three is evidence enough for me.

 

So the pacing of An Unexpected Journey isn't engaging. So some of the Dwarf table manners humor (of which there is none in the later two) is too crude. So the romance (of which there is little) doesn't work in Battle of the Five Armies. It really isn't enough to discount the films' many merits.

 

Generally, while I like to look at film critically, I tend to like films more than I dislike them. Its completely self defeating to constantly find the bad in something that is made for your enjoyment.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I have great memories of The Hobbit Trilogy. I’m not really bothered how they’re seen critical. They’re fun. They could have been better but whatever. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Bilbo 3,709]

9 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

What? How so?

 

 

Yep.

 

 

If you keep telling yourself that, you may end up believing it.

 

 

If it was only that, maybe, but these are far from the only problems of this trilogy.

 

 

Not, it doesn't, really. Well at least I don't think it does, neither visually (again, CG everywhere, bloom all the way... Very different from FOTR) nor musically (the modern action music in BOFA sounds way different than the music in FOTR) nor tonally (take something like Legolas using a troll (who has his eyes fucking pierced for whatever reason) to destroy a tower to make a bridge, to rescue Tauriel, and while this tower is falling apart, he walks on falling blocks and manages to go up somehow. Then you can also take Alfrid ending up on a catapult that throws him right into the mouth of a troll...). And then here comes Fellowship. What? Seamless transition? When? Where? How?

 

 

Plus Tauriel. Amirite?

 

That shot of her face in BotFA that lasts far too long was worth the price of admission all 4 times!

[Chen G. 3,943]

When discussing Tauriel, I think we need to differentiate her character and the romance subplot. Tauriel herself feels like a part of the world of the film and, in cinematic terms, she is a good female character. She's active, strong but she's also feminine (I mean, it's a red-headed Evangeline Lily!) and yet she isn't really sexualized, and she's certainly head-strong to a fault. I even don't mind the earlier romantic scenes, albeit mainly because they are amigious to the point that they can be interperated as budding friendship. Oh, and I adore the hell out of the thematic material attached to her.

 

In an attempt to conclude this discussion (which I only just realized has little to do with the subject of the thread) I'd say I'm not really set on changing anyone's mind on the films. Changing one's opinion on something is the exception, not the rule. But I think the naysayers need to accept that there's more than a modicum of logic behind the reasons why some like these films, not just fanboyism.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I typically don't care about off-topic discussion, but we have an ENTIRE FORUM dedicated to the hobbit movies.

[Wojo 2,453]

And the operative question is, why? 

[DominicCobb 194]

On September 22, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Matt C said:

 

It still had shitty dialogue.

 

It has shitty everything.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

To the forward command center take me!

[Arpy 4,145]

Around the survivors a perimeter create!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Pilot! Land in that assembly area!

[Arpy 4,145]

Begun the Clone Wars have...

[Manakin Skywalker 4,891]

Dellow felegates! In wesponse to dis direct threat to the Republic, meesa propose dat da Senate give immediately emergency powas to da Supeem Chancella!

[Arpy 4,145]

A Sith Lord? 

[Will 2,215]

17 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Star Wars Ring theory is different. That's the brilliance of Lucas!

 

Yes!

 

15 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

Where is @Will to defend his beloved theory?

 

15 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

 

He's 15 and it's Saturday morning.  He is almost assuredly asleep.  Sometimes I kinda miss having the ability to sleep until noon.  And it really is an ability pretty unique to the young.

 

Nope, I wish LOL. I was at a Model UN conference all day (starting at 8:30). 

 

15 hours ago, Arpy said:

The theory applied to Star Wars doesn't work. Watch all six films and their making of documentaries and see if you can discern the theory was a grand plan by Lucas. Lucas writes the scripts a few months advance or into pre-production of the films! It's simply giving him too much credit for reusing similar visuals and arcs! 

 

The ring theory doesn't suggest that Lucas had the arc planned out while doing the original trilogy; it merely suggests that he had this plan in mind when working on the prequel trilogy. 

 

16 hours ago, Arpy said:

The Ring Theory is a little bit more complex than callbacks. I agree with Mr. Plinkett's analysis of TFA and the Ring Theory in which he doesn't think that Lucas crafted the films with the theory in mind, but comparisons and callbacks can be made nonetheless because familiar elements are ideal to reuse and remind people of what they've already seen. 

 

Indeed! Most people who diss it don't seem to really understand it, even at a basic level (Plinkett seems to have done his research, however). 

 

I definitely agree that it's a little implausible that Lucas had this grand plan in mind but it was never revealed to the public in any interview with anyone involved with the film. To be sure, there is this 2005 quote from Lucas, but it's not clear evidence:

 

Quote

The interesting thing about Star Wars—and I didn’t ever really push this very far, because it’s not really that important—but there’s a lot going on there that most people haven’t come to grips with yet. But when they do, they will find it’s a much more intricately made clock than most people would imagine.

 

That said, regardless of Lucas' intentions, I found the ring theory incredibly fascinating. It incorporates several important ideas that Lucas has gone on the record about (e.g. duality in TPM), and extrapolates that into a grand narrative that completely transformed my view of Star Wars, and helped the films (particularly the prequels) serve as a launching pad for a reawakening of my sense of spirituality (one of Lucas' original goals of SW back in the 70s). So in some sense, it doesn't matter that much whether he intended this grand scheme or not. It would, however, be awe-inspiring if it was indeed intended.

 

Lastly, as the the ring theory article suggests, if Lucas did intend the scheme, it's likely that he had a reason for doing so, a thematic purpose. The author explains his interpretation of that overarching theme. So it's not necessarily just a matter of "rhyming." You can find a message in all of this, one about life and immortality, self and ego -- and it's one that I think is very simple but very important, and has affected me deeply, directly and indirectly, over the course of the last few years. 

[Manakin Skywalker 4,891]

The Techno Union army... [unintelligible]... is at your disposal, Count.

[Arpy 4,145]

3 minutes ago, Will said:

That said, regardless of Lucas' intentions, I found the ring theory incredibly fascinating. It incorporates several important ideas that Lucas has gone on the record about (e.g. duality in TPM)

"The Great Dual"

[Will 2,215]

Ah, yes, it all makes sense now! 

 

 

[Arpy 4,145]

I've seen so much negativity for Abrams' return over the last few days, it's sickening. Petitions for his removal and hundreds of comments about how shitty TFA was. People shouldn't forget that we wouldn't be experiencing the Star Wars Renaissance right now if it weren't for Abrams' and his retread of ANH. The future of the series was hinged on TFA's success and luckily it succeeded critically and financially. 

 

 

 

 

[nightscape94 965]

Some of the vocal backlash sprouting up now seems disproportionately loud compared to what I perceive to be love, or at the very least joy, for TFA by most of the fans.  I don't quite get it.  Perhaps they're upset Jurassic World fanatics.  It seems de rigueur recently to hate on Abrams, and I'm not someone who feels particularly driven to come to his defense.

[Cerebral Cortex 3,357]

I really enjoyed TFA when it was popular to like it, but now that everyone else is hating on it, I, unfortunately, have to say I dislike it, or else I run the risk of coming across as genuine. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,499]

1 minute ago, Cerebral Cortex said:

I really enjoyed TFA when it was popular to like it, but now that everyone else is hating on it, I, unfortunately, have to say I dislike it now, or else I run the risk of coming across as genuine. 

 

If you like TFA, then stick to your opinion, and screw everyone else. 

I hated TLC when it was first released, and my opinion of it hasn't changed much. Conversely, I like a lot of films that failed, both critically, and financially. I am not ashamed to say that I like films that "fail".

 

The best thing that I can say about TFA, is that it's STAR WARS's greatest hits; it has nothing new offer, and absolutley nothing to say, but it has a fun time saying it.