MovieChat Forums > mxpowers43 > Replies
mxpowers43's Replies
Were you replying to me on this? because I consider ROTK to be a good film objectively speaking. I hate Dances with Wolves with a passion but recognize it is probably one of the greatest films ever made. I can be objective too. TFA by any and all measures I judge movies based on merit is by far the worse I have seen (big budget anyway). This is why it is so surprising that many critics and fans have seemingly blinded themselves to this film. I guess the emotions and nostalgia is still just too fresh right now. only time will tell how deep this denial goes; it might be pathological and based on some of the responses I have seen this is highly suspected to be the case.
Well at least we see eye to eye on the TPM being flawed but decent story and TFA being basically an irremediable mess. whatever our disagreement about Dark knight be, this is more important.
because if one can't look at TFA a realize it is bad; I am not sure to what degree I can trust there judgment on anything.
OH compared to the Book only Fellowship did the series justice. But I think overall they were good Film adaptations.
Yes you are also right that the academy and other awards groups seem to have a bias against comic films. I am not trying to make the argument that awards are the only indication of quality but can be A indication. I was look warm to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight was really good but DKR was not; at least as I can measure, good.
Like and dislike is subjective. The point I was trying to make you can like something that is objectively bad and admit it. I like some objectively bad films and hate some objectively good films.
"Adjusting for inflation is silly to me. Bottom line it had better legs than the prequel trilogy did. That was the point I was making on that. "
No because adjusting for inflation TPM is number 18 all time and ROTS is 68 all time and ATOC is 94 all time. The series has 7 movies all on the top 100 movies of all time. The series has legs no matter what.
"Here is the thing why does it bother you what other people do? Okay so lets say you're right. Lets say people are going to willingly let Disney get away with that and look the other way."
Obviously I am/was a star wars fan. That is likely no longer to be the case. But even if I stopped being a fan does that mean I have no right to criticize the film?
"People will not criticize Rey? On what planet are you living on."
oh so now it is twisted back and Rey is not a popular and beloved character. I love how you defenders just pick a position that suits whatever point you are currently making and forget the other 20 things you said. I thought Rey was a popular and loved character and the critics represent only a tiny fringe toxic insecure man children afraid of a female lead. Now you are saying she is constant criticized by a majority.
I also like 2015 Mad Max Fury Road and thought Furiousa was a great character, because I do not care about a character's sex, only if they are written well. Furiousa was, Rey was not (Mary Sue is not a sexist trope it is gender neutral and fits Rey almost perfectly so it is not a cliche criticism it is a applicable title)
Yes the story of the PT was structurally sound but fairly poorly executed. If only Lucas had only drafted the main story and allowed someone else to touch up and direct. How special could they have been. Even with just a few fixes a work arounds and minor changes the films could be measures better.
TFA would need to be redone from scratch to even begin to resemble anything close to a good film.
Well the way I look at it; there are least some merit we can judge film objectively to some degree. I think the dark night rises is an objectively bad (not terrible) film and Return of the king is an objectively good (not great) film. Awards don't always properly reflect film quality but do tend to be an indication of quality. It is hard to imagine ROTK would win 11 for 11 academy awards (tied for most awards in film history and the only one to win all 11 awards it was nominated for) and not be an objectively good film to some degree. TDKR got 0 nominations altogether. It is hard to imagine that is not in some way objectively unworthy in some sense.
But as I said not all awards or lack of reflect quality. Titanic is one of the other films to win 11 academy awards and I think it is a rather dull film that had a few clever gimmicks.
I have stated elsewhere why I do not like TDKR if you want I can repeat it or go into great detail as to why, but the point being as bad as I found it I can overlook my dislike of it because it was not the worse movie I have seen and I do not care about comic book films that much. I loved star wars and TFA was, by almost ever objective measure I have available, the worst big budget movie I have ever seen.
YEs but the reception to TPM was not bad, it was mostly postive until ATOC came out and it lowered drastically after and even more when ROTS came out. OTher good films being out at the same time had nothing to do with the critical success or lack success for ATOC only the financial success would have been impacted. ATOC got bad rating because it was a bad film after one already bad film. It took 2 for anyone to even admit it.
"If the Last Jedi is good and by all accounts it is looking like it will be TFA will still be remembered fondly."
This is a problem I have, no matter what TLJ does to 'answer the questions' left from TFA it is going to feel tacked on. No genuine argument can ignore that. It is more likely most people are just going to over look it and not care. Which means disney is going to get away with making a movie that is a 2 hour commercial and the people left satisfied.
"It after all is the 3rd highest grossing film ever. "
adjusted for inflation it is not even on the top ten.
"The thing which people enjoyed about TFA was it did not overly rely on cgi and green screen like the prequels did."
TPM had more practical effect than TFA and the entire OT combined. The problem is the cgi was used 'abusively' in some of the wrong places and it made it feel off. It was ambitious for the time but a poor choice in the long run. TFA has way more cgi effects that the entire PT but they are better about hiding it today. CGI use and cinematography techniques have obviously improved in the last 20 years.
The thing that bothers me about TFA "restoring people's like for star wars" is it does not seem genuine. Like people are going along with liking it because they are supposed to. Like some unspoken rule says you have to or something is wrong with you. So most people will not go against peer pressure or even perceived peer pressure. For example; most people will not criticize Rey, even if they did not like the character, because they don't feel like being called sexist.
With Annie you are obviously right it went over the top with the Federation ship battle. But even in that case he had a lot of help from R2 fixing the ship and helping him with the ship functions he did not know. And annie still never utilized any fully developed force abilities. It never went further than knowledge, intuition and reflexes. Compare that with Rey on her first outing. This is why even the Rey/Anakin comparison is ridiculous.
Jar Jar I just found annoying and rather distracting in a bad way. Too over the top with the attempts at 'funny'.
I did not find Daisey's performance all that good. Mostly odd facial expressions; mouth a gap too often, and too much camera awareness and forced cutie looks. And every action scene was the same look, baring teeth. People don't actually do that in a real fight/battle. I think a lot of the good performance people saw was they were charmed by the actress and were taken in by the posh British accent. And think about how lazy her "cheap power-up shortcuts" were, the film does not even attempt at an explanation like with Anakin's midchlorian counts excuse. TFA gave us absolutely nothing. "A good question, for another time" was the entire film. It is either TFA was the laziest cope out of a film script ever or it was a 2 hour commercial. Either way it is a bad film through and through.
I am skeptical mostly because I can't think of a single scenario in which the problems of TFA can be addressed satisfactorily. Even a good explanation is going to feel tacky now.
Yes that was how I remembered it as well. I imagine if TLJ is terrible and is does not bother to try to cover the rather large holes TFA left, the opinion of the ST will be lowered as well. But it, IMO, will never be as disdained as the PT. It just seems that too many people are blinded by ideology and stuck far too much in denial to ever admit it.
Because as I remember it, even though the PT was not initially hated, no one tried to come up with ridiculous insulting defenses of criticism Jar Jar or Kid Annie, like they do with Rey and Finn; who as far as I can tell are every bit as bad (if not worse) as Jar Jar or Annie
Edit: For example no one accused Jar Jar critics of being racist, or accused Annie critics as hating children. Though some did complain about Jar Jar being a stereotype and Annie being too 'kid friendly'.
It dipped significantly for TPM by the time ATOC came out. If you remember the reviews for TPM were mostly positive fore the first few years.
"The prequels were criticized from day one"
No they did not. You are remembering history wrong. the prequels came out over a 6 years. 1999-2005. It was not until 2002 that TPM started getting regularly viewed negatively. And it was not fully viewed negatively until 2005 when the prequels were complete. The only regular thing that was 'bashed' was the character Anakin.
You even admit yourself, that people "little in denial". I see their reaction to TFA as "hugely in denial" to where they can't even admit it to themselves out of some bizarre subconscious fear of being ostracized from 'civilized' society. I think you are right in that the opinion of TFA will never dip as much because people will never let go of their denial this time.
Honestly when it comes to popular opinion only time can properly measure it to see if it has any kind of 'staying power'. A film like Star Wars it will take years for the emotion and nostalgia to wear off. If in 5 years time it still holds such a positive opinion I will be surprise.
I am not one of those that expect people to like everything I do or demand a explanation when they like something I don't, what bothers me is them defending the criticisms with poorly thought out arguments that are rather insulting to the critic more than anything. Like trying to write off any criticism of Rey as being sexist in nature. That is just lazy non arguments. I find it annoying.
Okay what is your objective data for 'rating' of TFA?
here is mine:
Story: 2/10 poorly layered retelling of ANH (with elements of ESB and ROTJ) with lazy nostalgia and incoherent pace.
Character: 0/10 Bland characterization that did not fit the given backgrounds of new characters. Inconsistent or no development. Returning characters poorly fleshed out, returned to pre-ANH personalities without explanation.
Editing: 4/10 Utilized too much CGI and too many scenes at high frame per minute creating messy hard to follow action. Character randomly appearing in plot contrived spots without much focus as to how or why.
Cinematography: 8/10 each individual shot well crafted and utilization of good color schemes throughout.
Setting: 5/10 No originality. All settings were seen before but just with names changed.
Action/Fight Choreography: 9/10 Probably the only truly above average aspect of the film. The action scenes with the exception of a few poorly focused moments was well shot and created a sense of action and tensity effectively.
Music: 6/10 Unimpressive for a star wars film. Music was background noise at best and mostly unnoticed at worse. Nearly making it impossible to appreciate any of the scores within the film itself.
CGI/Special effect: 7/10 About standard for a big budget action movie. Nothing impressive but nothing exceptionally bad.
I think TFA is fair game as long as we are in the middle of the trilogy. 2 years after episode 9 comes out if we are still bashing it; then yes we are pathetic.
Are we supposed to forgot about all the plot problems that TFA left us with when viewing the next film? If so, that means we are right to judge TFA as a stand alone and nothing in the next one will make up for it. you can't have it both ways. either TFA matters or it doesn't. If it matters the seemingly inconsistent plot must be addressed to a satisfactory level. if it doesn't matter TFA can be judged based on it own merit without consideration to 'fixes' coming later. Either way you argument is invalid.
Is basic logic just null and void in those that like TFA?
"So here's the question: Given this jump in development speed from Anakin's generation to the next, why should Rey be RESTRICTED (in your argument) from her development being potentially faster than Luke's? Why is it REQUIRED for her to develop slower than or exactly equally to Luke? Again, this question is assuming she is actually developing faster than Luke, which we don't know yet."
Because she had zero onscreen training and instruction and therefore her growth appears unearned. Luke does not utilize a single force power until the second film. Same with Anakin and anakin was even over powered and borderline Mary Sue. I actually agree with the argument that Anakin was a Mary Sue and he is no where near the level Rey was. It is not about the level at which she develops. It is about how the development is depicted. It feels forced without actual character development and therefore unearned.
"Where does your anger over Rey really come from? "
From the incredible crappy writing that ruined the potential of franchise, maybe?
" Once you understand this and admit to yourself why you doggedly pursue and criticize Rey with a term that specifies her gender ("Mary Sue") "
God with people like you I want to slam your head on a table. "Mary Sue" IS GENDER NEUTRAL. That is why I say Anakin was a Mary Sue and so is Dominic Turrito (Fast +Furious) IMO.
Tell me this, if I am sexist and just hate female leads in Action roles how can I like Furiousa, Selene (underworld), Ripley, Sarah Connor, Leeloo, Brienne of Tarth, The Bride (Kill Bill), Hit Girl (Kick-Ass), Black Widow, that's all I can think of off the top of my head? All female action leads that are among my favorite movie/TV characters. How does you perfect argument deal with this contradiction?
"1. She had a mindless attachment to staying on Jakku and waiting for her "family" even though she's been there for 14 years with no results."
How is this a character flaw?
"2. She almost got Finn killed (as well as herself and Han, really) when she accidentally released the Rathars. Also this put Han's ship and the Falcon at risk. Han had to ditch his entire ship because of this."
Not only does she immediately fix this a save Finn. This mistake saved them all from the space pirates. Not much of a mistake when it saves the day for them all. Not even her screw up could actually cause a negative consequence.
"3. She wandered off from the group at Maz's castle, then got hunted down and easily captured by Kylo. This caused others to have to try to save her, which was an unnecessary distraction while trying to destroy Starkiller Base."
The only reason Finn even agree to go is to save Rey. The only reason Rey is captured is so that 1. it gives Finn the reason and 2. so she can out force mind power Kylo and self learn the mind trick. Her mistakes seem to have a pattern of amounting to zero negative consequences.
"4. When facing Kylo in the saber fight, despite her skills defending herself with a staff, she attempted a basic forward thrust attack over and over, which proved useless. "
So she is struggling until she completely annihilates him once she actually starts using the force. So she was holding off a trained force user without even using the force? Yup still not seeing any signs of imperfection.
"5. She had no place in helping bring down Starkiller Base. If she was truly perfect, she wouldn't have even been there. If you want to see a character who is far more "perfect," look no further than Poe Dameron, yet there is no complaint about him."
Except the whole reason Finn was there was for Rey and she was the focus of the whole thing more than any other character. Poe sucked too but he wasn't the focus of the film.
"So if Luke can learn that fast in spite of seeming to be a bit dim, there's nothing implausible at all about Rey picking up a few tricks with no training! At least she's heard of the Force, which is more than Luke had."
Luke = Some one screen training and suggestion of self teaching between films
Rey = literally zero (0), none, zilch, no on screen training or instruction whatsoever. And Only speculative evidence to 'forgotten' training.
She heard the force. Luke said "i can feel the force". I think the latter means more.
"PS: And yes, she didn't defeat Darth Emo, she got away from him."
WTF are you high? He was totally defeated. Cute down humiliated, disarmed and slashed across the face. There is literally no realm in existence in which this is not a defeat.
It is hard to take your defensive arguments seriously when 1. you come up with this pathetic level of straw man that 2. are propagated by others that just want to pat each other on the back at how woke you are for defending a female character for no other reason then you think women are weak and need your defense.
Not defending your opinion of TDKR because I think that movie was awful (not nearly as bad as TFA) but isn't interesting that one of the defenses the TFA defenders use to deflect criticism is it is all opinion and no objective criticism is 'allowed' in looking at TFA?
oh good. it is settled then. I don't know what I was so worked up about and why i dedicated so much time to investigating when all I need to do is ask online poster slimone. You had the answer all along. Thank you. I will now go on and conquer the world in thy name alone.
You use the sex of a character as reason for defending the character alone from criticism. This means you are focused on the sex of the character and not on any traits or development outside of that. Also you are so insecure about the sex of the character being female you overcompensate by trying to write off said criticism as trolling because deep down inside you think women are inherently weaker and need your defense. You sir are the sexist in this argument.
"Mary Sue is ACTUALLY about how realistic a character is, in terms of human abilities. Here, let me clue you in, since you can't seem to comprehend. This is a quick example conversation:"
Given the term was based on a satirical half human half Vulcan character out of a Star Trek fan fic I am going to go ahead and close this out with, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.