Star Wars Episode VIII - The Last Jedi thread

[/dev/null]

dude jar jar binks is the ****.

Maybe the big reveal in the next one will be Snokes is really Jar Jar

[EersN'Bills]

The biggest problem with the prequels I had was that Darth Maul went out like a b****. It's made even more funny in the third episode when Obi-Wan advises Anakin to not jump because he (Obi-Wan) has "the high ground", and I'm like "that didn't matter for you in the first episode."

 

But Maul would have been a great villain to have for all the prequels.

[DC Tom]

Maybe the big reveal in the next one will be Snokes is really Jar Jar

 

Meesa okey-dokey Sith!

[dickleyjones]

There are nuances in the prequels that I do like, but I don't want to nitpick about what was good and not good in them.

 

I thought the most interesting character was Qui-Gon Jinn, and it's too bad that we didn't get to see him used more in this setting.

 

I'm not saying Lucas does not deserve some criticism for what he brought to the screen. My issue is with all the people complaining that Lucas ruined their childhood. That is ridiculous.

he did not ruin my childhood with bad movies. he made my childhood great! and then he made some bad movies.

[Mark Vader]

The overwhelming majority of Marvel movies have been soulless, shameless assembly line cash grabs. Star Wars is getting the same treatment. Disney sucks.

Can't please everybody.

[FireChan]

Can't please everybody.

Well they could try to make movies with a soul, again. But that requires creative talent. Much easier to write "Captain America gets hit by X, cut to Iron Man saying something funny on a bland CGI backdrop" over and over and over and over. It sells.

Edited April 18, 2017 by FireChan

[DC Tom]

Well they could try to make movies with a soul, again. But that requires creative talent. Much easier to write "Captain America gets hit by X, cut to Iron Man saying something funny on a bland CGI backdrop" over and over and over and over. It sells.

 

When it costs $40M or more to sign a name actor or not get your movie made, you can't afford to make movies with a soul.

[Jerry Christ]

too many old people in here complaining.

[eball]

too many old people in here complaining.

 

Sums up TSW in general.

[FireChan]

 

When it costs $40M or more to sign a name actor or not get your movie made, you can't afford to make movies with a soul.

The economics of movie making does not make movies "good." It's an excuse. And I'm not sure how valid it is. Edited April 18, 2017 by FireChan

[DC Tom]

The economics of movie making does not make movies "good." It's an excuse. And I'm not sure how valid it is.

 

It most certainly does. When you have to recoup that sort of cost, you have to focus less on "good" and more on "making spectacles that put asses in seats," which drastically changes the economics of movie-making. It effectively squeezes out almost any chance of making a "mid-range budget" movie, because the economics become too risky (Deadpool, for example, never gets made if Ryan Reynolds gets A-list money, because it would have been too much of an economic risk.) Easier to shell out a quarter-billion on empty spectacle that you're sure will recoup its budget (e.g. Batman vs. Superman) than take a risk on a $50M movie. So you end up with a handful of bloated tent-pole movies, and a couple handfuls of low-budget or indie movies, but nothing in the mid-range where quality used to be found.

[Mark Vader]

Well they could try to make movies with a soul, again. But that requires creative talent. Much easier to write "Captain America gets hit by X, cut to Iron Man saying something funny on a bland CGI backdrop" over and over and over and over. It sells.

Serious question. What exactly do you want these Marvel Movies to deliver for you to consider them good, or creative?

[FireChan]

 

It most certainly does. When you have to recoup that sort of cost, you have to focus less on "good" and more on "making spectacles that put asses in seats," which drastically changes the economics of movie-making. It effectively squeezes out almost any chance of making a "mid-range budget" movie, because the economics become too risky (Deadpool, for example, never gets made if Ryan Reynolds gets A-list money, because it would have been too much of an economic risk.) Easier to shell out a quarter-billion on empty spectacle that you're sure will recoup its budget (e.g. Batman vs. Superman) than take a risk on a $50M movie. So you end up with a handful of bloated tent-pole movies, and a couple handfuls of low-budget or indie movies, but nothing in the mid-range where quality used to be found.

Yep. And it sucks.

 

Serious question. What exactly do you want these Marvel Movies to deliver for you to consider them good, or creative?

Take any kind of a chance? Show any kind of directorial flair? Less dependence on CGI? Characters that aren't 2D cardboard cut outs? Any kind of original theme?

 

If they can't do any of those things, they are trash movies that should not exist. Here's an example. Thor 2 should not exist. It was a campy, soulless piece of trash. It was made because it grossed $640M, but it was an actual disgrace. The movie industry is fundamentally broken because movies like Thor 2 make money. And Disney is the chief culprit. Along with the mindless consumers.

[Beef Jerky]

Serious question. What exactly do you want these Marvel Movies to deliver for you to consider them good, or creative?

He doesn't know what he wants. One of those people you never want to ask about how a movie was but he will tell you anyway. He hates these movies yet always talking about them.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Beef Jerky

[FireChan]

He doesn't know what he wants. One of those people you never want to ask about how a movie was but he will tell you anyway. He hates these movies yet always talking about them.

That's a tough post to have immediately after I dunked on it. :lol:

[Beef Jerky]

That's a tough post to have immediately after I dunked on it. :lol:

I read that post and that is why I responded. You really don't know what you want. You never answered... Just said stupid ****.

[FireChan]

I read that post and that is why I responded. You really don't know what you want. You never answered... Just said stupid ****.

 

Yep. And it sucks.

 

Take any kind of a chance? Show any kind of directorial flair? Less dependence on CGI? Characters that aren't 2D cardboard cut outs? Any kind of original theme?

 

If they can't do any of those things, they are trash movies that should not exist. Here's an example. Thor 2 should not exist. It was a campy, soulless piece of trash. It was made because it grossed $640M, but it was an actual disgrace. The movie industry is fundamentally broken because movies like Thor 2 make money. And Disney is the chief culprit. Along with the mindless consumers.

Ouch.

[Beef Jerky]

Ouch.

Yea that answers nothing...

 

Chance at what?

 

Directional flair? Explain yourself... These stories follow comics FFS.

 

CGI is the future, you don't like it then don't watch it.

 

2D cardboard cut out? They are real actors...

 

Any kind of original theme... Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Take any kind of chance"

 

 

See a bunch of ****, just like when you talk football hahahaha

[FireChan]

Yea that answers nothing...

 

Chance at what?

 

Directional flair? Explain yourself... These stories follow comics FFS.

 

CGI is the future, you don't like it then don't watch it.

 

2D cardboard cut out? They are real actors...

 

Any kind of original theme... Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Take any kind of chance"

 

 

See a bunch of ****, just like when you talk football hahahaha

A chance, like not telling a bland "bad guy needs X to threaten the world," story or "CGI monsters are the villains so we can still appeal to little kids."

 

Directorial flair refers to the shots and cinematography. The original Iron Man directed by John Favreau had many beautiful shots and juxtapositions that you can't even find in some of the latest Marvel films. Example

.

This is a cool shot. It's aesthetically pleasing. Show me something from Avengers 2 or Thor 2 that comes close. I don't think you can.

 

"Don't watch?" I thought we were talking about my criticisms of the films. CGI can be done tastefully, or it can be your whole movie and look like crap. The Star Wars prequels were almost entirely CGI and they sucked.

 

As the Marvel films have progressed, the characters have become caricatures. Any development we saw previously is thrown aside for funny quips and nothing of any substance. They have no motivations, they aren't real people, they are action figures. Which is boring.

 

An original theme would be taking a chance. Instead we get schlocky "Ultron wants to kill the Avengers because his computer logic believes that will protect humanity." That theme has been done 10000000000 times before. It's boring.

 

Now, not all Marvel movies suck. Just most of them.

Edited April 19, 2017 by FireChan

[Beef Jerky]

You know that is what the comics were always about... Villians X tries to destroy the world and the heroes go to save...

You want something different then don't watch comic movies.

[Mark Vader]

Yep. And it sucks.

 

Take any kind of a chance? Show any kind of directorial flair? Less dependence on CGI? Characters that aren't 2D cardboard cut outs? Any kind of original theme?

 

If they can't do any of those things, they are trash movies that should not exist. Here's an example. Thor 2 should not exist. It was a campy, soulless piece of trash. It was made because it grossed $640M, but it was an actual disgrace. The movie industry is fundamentally broken because movies like Thor 2 make money. And Disney is the chief culprit. Along with the mindless consumers.

I understand what you mean about trash making money, the Transformers & Twilight series come to mind.

 

"Thor: The Dark World" wasn't spectacular, but I didn't think it was awful either.

 

Are you saying that all of the Marvel Movies by Disney are terrible? Including "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", and "Doctor Strange"?

[shrader]

The stand-alone movies do tend to be better. You're bashing all of the latest ones as soulless and/or unoriginal. Are you including movies like Guardians, Ant-Man, and Dr. Strange when you say that? The first two in particular were very fun movies that felt much different than a lot of their other stuff. They get so much more time to focus and develop the characters in the smaller cast of these stand-alones.

 

edit: Looks like Mark beat me to it.

Edited April 19, 2017 by shrader

[FireChan]

I understand what you mean about trash making money, the Transformers & Twilight series come to mind.

 

"Thor: The Dark World" wasn't spectacular, but I didn't think it was awful either.

 

Are you saying that all of the Marvel Movies by Disney are terrible? Including "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", and "Doctor Strange"?

No I think some were decent. But most are Transformers-esque trash.

[Deranged Rhino]

You know that is what the comics were always about... Villians X tries to destroy the world and the heroes go to save...

You want something different then don't watch comic movies.

 

The problem Tom and FC are pointing out is that the business model of the studios these days is to make less films for more money. Meaning, if you don't like comic book movies, you are't going to have a lot of other choices.

 

The business model of the studio system is destroying the originality and diversity of the feature film business.

[Beef Jerky]

The problem Tom and FC are pointing out is that the business model of the studios these days is to make less films for more money. Meaning, if you don't like comic book movies, you are't going to have a lot of other choices.

 

The business model of the studio system is destroying the originality and diversity of the feature film business.

 

Plenty of choices... New movies come out every week.

[Deranged Rhino]

Plenty of choices... New movies come out every week.

 

Far less choices than even 10 years ago. Which is the point.

 

They're making less movies but spending more money to do so. Meaning they're not going to risk making original products without built in audiences because it's too big of a risk.

 

Without risk, there is no innovation. Without innovation there is no creativity. Without creativity there is no soul.

 

* That's not to say you can't have good comic book movies, there have been plenty. The point is that there are less other choices out there for film buffs - which is ironic in the age we live in where there are more platforms than ever before.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[FireChan]

Far less choices than even 10 years ago. Which is the point.

 

They're making less movies but spending more money to do so. Meaning they're not going to risk making original products without built in audiences because it's too big of a risk.

 

Without risk, there is no innovation. Without innovation there is no creativity. Without creativity there is no soul.

 

* That's not to say you can't have good comic book movies, there have been plenty. The point is that there are less other choices out there for film buffs - which is ironic in the age we live in where there are more platforms than ever before.

George Lucas of all people has some great examples of the difference between Hollywood 30 years ago and today. He ended up exemplifying both sides in his career, but it was still something to hear.

 

Lucas said that Hollywood used to be the filmmaker fighting with, but also being bet on, by the studio. The studio would take a $20M investment on a project and say, go make me $100M. Nowadays, with more data, hard numbers and analytics at our finger tips, companies like Disney have cut filmmakers out of the equation. They fulfill their brand recognition quota by using an existing IP, because original stories are harder to market, and they've perfected their new game. There's still the odd bust, like Fantastic Four, but on the whole they can grab a A or A- list actor, pair him up with a director who has done two episodes of the Mindy Project and 90% of the time they'll make half a billion dollars. It's insane.

[TSOL]

Ill take the muppet characters, model tie fighters and x-wings, and hand built sets over a half a billion dollar cgi budget anyday. Those things gave movies depth.

 

But id take analog music over digital music as well, guess im a dinosaur

[T-Bomb]

A chance, like not telling a bland "bad guy needs X to threaten the world," story or "CGI monsters are the villains so we can still appeal to little kids."

 

Directorial flair refers to the shots and cinematography. The original Iron Man directed by John Favreau had many beautiful shots and juxtapositions that you can't even find in some of the latest Marvel films. Example

.

This is a cool shot. It's aesthetically pleasing. Show me something from Avengers 2 or Thor 2 that comes close. I don't think you can.

 

"Don't watch?" I thought we were talking about my criticisms of the films. CGI can be done tastefully, or it can be your whole movie and look like crap. The Star Wars prequels were almost entirely CGI and they sucked.

 

As the Marvel films have progressed, the characters have become caricatures. Any development we saw previously is thrown aside for funny quips and nothing of any substance. They have no motivations, they aren't real people, they are action figures. Which is boring.

 

An original theme would be taking a chance. Instead we get schlocky "Ultron wants to kill the Avengers because his computer logic believes that will protect humanity." That theme has been done 10000000000 times before. It's boring.

 

Now, not all Marvel movies suck. Just most of them.

 

Agree completely. Hollywood is risk-averse these days. Money means too much to them.

 

Guardians was great IMO.

[DC Tom]

 

The problem Tom and FC are pointing out is that the business model of the studios these days is to make less films for more money. Meaning, if you don't like comic book movies, you are't going to have a lot of other choices.

 

The business model of the studio system is destroying the originality and diversity of the feature film business.

 

And a side effect of that is that, with relatively fewer movies but a greater number of bigger movies, theaters have to pack the screens with the big-budget movies, further squeezing out any opportunity to screen mid-range movies. And the constant march of tent-pole movies scheduled to not compete with each other means a movie's effective run is all but over in about a month - I thought about going to see Kong: Skull Island Friday before last, it had four showtimes with in ten miles of me. Four screenings, three screens, in three theaters. I'm sure Guardians 2 will open on at least six screens with one show every 20-30 minutes at the nearest theater to me, and six weeks later have only one showing.

 

And that's bad economics. That results in jacked-up ticket prices, when the studios attempt to recover their investment in a 4-6 week cinematic run. It hurts the theater revenue, since their income is based on a graded percentage of the box that increases the longer a movie runs. So they have to raise concession prices in response, which puts the "moviegoing experience" further out of reach..,.which ultimately means that people are that much less likely to go see a "mid-range" movie, because if it doesn't have that cinematic "wow" factor, why shell out to see it on a big screen?

 

Case in point: The Man From UNCLE. Not a great movie, but not a bad one. Charming, in its own right. Well made, decent script, solid (though not inspiring) performances. Basically a stylistic love letter to the 60's spy genre. But there is absolutely no chance I would have ever shelled out $60, between tickets and concessions, to see it in a theater, as the big screen does nothing for it. And apparently I'm not the only one - a $75m movie that made $110m.

 

There's your creative mid-range movie. A $25 movie-going experience in a $60 movie-going world.

Ill take the muppet characters, model tie fighters and x-wings, and hand built sets over a half a billion dollar cgi budget anyday. Those things gave movies depth.

 

But id take analog music over digital music as well, guess im a dinosaur

 

A line from a review of The Phantom Menace captures that in a nutshell:

 

Jar-Jar Binks lacks the charm of a tall man dressed in dog pelts.

[Deranged Rhino]

George Lucas of all people has some great examples of the difference between Hollywood 30 years ago and today. He ended up exemplifying both sides in his career, but it was still something to hear.

 

Lucas said that Hollywood used to be the filmmaker fighting with, but also being bet on, by the studio. The studio would take a $20M investment on a project and say, go make me $100M. Nowadays, with more data, hard numbers and analytics at our finger tips, companies like Disney have cut filmmakers out of the equation. They fulfill their brand recognition quota by using an existing IP, because original stories are harder to market, and they've perfected their new game. There's still the odd bust, like Fantastic Four, but on the whole they can grab a A or A- list actor, pair him up with a director who has done two episodes of the Mindy Project and 90% of the time they'll make half a billion dollars. It's insane.

 

Yup. Agreed, especially the bolded bits.

 

Though, with a small caveat: Disney at least started their Marvel Universe planning with filmmakers first. Feige is a producer and executive but with a filmmaker's heart.

 

 

And a side effect of that is that, with relatively fewer movies but a greater number of bigger movies, theaters have to pack the screens with the big-budget movies, further squeezing out any opportunity to screen mid-range movies. And the constant march of tent-pole movies scheduled to not compete with each other means a movie's effective run is all but over in about a month - I thought about going to see Kong: Skull Island Friday before last, it had four showtimes with in ten miles of me. Four screenings, three screens, in three theaters. I'm sure Guardians 2 will open on at least six screens with one show every 20-30 minutes at the nearest theater to me, and six weeks later have only one showing.

 

And that's bad economics. That results in jacked-up ticket prices, when the studios attempt to recover their investment in a 4-6 week cinematic run. It hurts the theater revenue, since their income is based on a graded percentage of the box that increases the longer a movie runs. So they have to raise concession prices in response, which puts the "moviegoing experience" further out of reach..,.which ultimately means that people are that much less likely to go see a "mid-range" movie, because if it doesn't have that cinematic "wow" factor, why shell out to see it on a big screen?

 

Case in point: The Man From UNCLE. Not a great movie, but not a bad one. Charming, in its own right. Well made, decent script, solid (though not inspiring) performances. Basically a stylistic love letter to the 60's spy genre. But there is absolutely no chance I would have ever shelled out $60, between tickets and concessions, to see it in a theater, as the big screen does nothing for it. And apparently I'm not the only one - a $75m movie that made $110m.

 

There's your creative mid-range movie. A $25 movie-going experience in a $60 movie-going world.

 

Absolutely. Well said.

 

[apuszczalowski]

You know that is what the comics were always about... Villians X tries to destroy the world and the heroes go to save...

You want something different then don't watch comic movies.

I want to watch a movie to be entertained for a short period of time, i don't need a comic book action movie to have depth and soul, I don't want the Avengers to be some art house film with subtitles and deep meaning that some pretentious douche is going to tell me is amazing and has so much depth and soul but really is just a piece of crap that people want to believe is good and think it is because they don't understand whats going on but are told its art.

 

I don't expect a Marvel comic movie or even Transformers to be anything more then heros fight a villian trying to destroy the world with a bunch of cool explosions and special effects. I don't need shots with artsy lighting and angle to give depth, I also don't need 30 minutes of the movie trying to explain the exact reason why the villan came to where they are emotionally and struggled with their inner self to decide to take over the world.

Plenty of choices... New movies come out every week.

The key is you just have to know where to find them. Its like music, there so much being put out there everyday, but if you only listen to what the local radio station is playing your only going to know about a small fraction of it.

 

Like everything in the world, its all about making money and what sells. The big budget blockbuster puts @sses in the seats and sell tickets, so thats what studios are going to focus on, not the small budget art film/passion project. The studios aren't charities, so if its not going to give them a good return, they wont waste their time with it

[GETTOTHE50]

 

must watch for SW fans

[Jerry Christ]

 

must watch for SW fans

Of all the characters in SW movies...I think I might even like Jar Jar even more then Luke......Luke worst character ever.

 

Sounds very bitter.......be a professional.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Jerry Christ

[LeviF]

lol Love all the boomers complaining about the "cartooning up" and whathaveyou of SW/comic book movies. Hey guess what, comic books are geared toward kids. And hey guess what: SO IS STAR WARS.

 

GTF over yourselves.

[DC Tom]

lol Love all the boomers complaining about the "cartooning up" and whathaveyou of SW/comic book movies. Hey guess what, comic books are geared toward kids. And hey guess what: SO IS STAR WARS.

 

GTF over yourselves.

 

Yeah...The Hidden Fortress was a kids' movie, sure.

[Just Jack]

 

Yeah...The Hidden Fortress was a kids' movie, sure.

I watched it based on you talking about it. The similarities were astounding.

[eball]

 

must watch for SW fans

 

What Hamill hasn't figured out yet is that the movies succeeded in spite of him, not because of him. What a bitter f**k,

[Deranged Rhino]

 

What Hamill hasn't figured out yet is that the movies succeeded in spite of him, not because of him. What a bitter f**k,

 

To be fair, that was cut to make him look bitter.

[shrader]

 

To be fair, that was cut to make him look bitter.

 

I just watched about 1 minute of it and had to stop due to the heavy editing. It may as well have been this old Simpsons scene.