Star Wars Discussion Thread v. Rise of Skywalker / Mandalorian (merged)

[Adami]

For instance, I can only speak for myself as a casual SW fan. I didn't care in the slightest bit about the gravity in the worm monster thing because I was so engaged with the plot, the characters, etc, that it just didn't matter.

Would have typed this if I could have articulated it this concisely.

Incidentally, I have been very critical of TLJ, but it never occurred to me that it could have anything to do with Space Bombs or other weird Sci-Fi movie junk. I ju

Oh yea, I probably should have mentioned that even though I did notice the flaw in the scene, it does not even come close to the list of complaints I have against it. Those complaints really are based around writing and so forth.

[Cool Chris]

What the hell was I writing?! Did I pass out while typing?!

"I ju....." I just swallowed some poison... I just saw Eliza Dushku walk in to the room...

[Bolsters]

Perhaps because we don't have a realistic point of comparison in real life.  I dunno... I've always wondered how artificial gravity would work, but not too much.  Because we know there is no gravity in space, I have a realistic point of comparison as to why the bombs shouldn't just "drop" on their own.

I had a thought about this.

If we accept that the bomber ship contains some form of artificial gravity, which it demonstrably does when you watch that scene, then the bombs would "drop" while inside the ship and inside the artificial gravity's field (which they are). If that artificial gravity ends at the opening of the bay doors or even a little further out if it's more of a bubble shape around the ship, when the bombs cross from the artificial gravity's area of effect into a zero-gravity environment, they would still retain their inertia and velocity, and would appear to fall in whatever direction the bottom of the ship was facing. The bombs essentially get launched in a sense, by the artificial gravity.

So if you can suspend disbelief and accept the existence of their artificial gravity technology, this is a scientifically sound way to rationalise how the bombs would drop/fall (or at least appear to do so) from the bomber to their target.

[jingle.boy]

^ Totally fair and legit.

To some of the comments from the other posts... I never try to objectively prove anything.  Entertainment is entirely 100% subjective - hence my repeated use of "TASTES!" as a response to these types of discussions.  I'm just articulating the reasons for my displeasure.  And it's not as though this one scene ruined the movie for me... there are lots of reasons I disliked the movie - this is just one example that we happened to zone in on the past page or so.

[ariich]

Relevant: https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/man-complains-sci-fi-film-is-a-bit-far-fetched-20180821176455

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I think that Star Wars is a good example of how good will influences our subjective opinions. If you are generally enjoying a movie or at least respect its intentions, you're more likely to let stuff go. If the movie feels off, then you're more likely to notice issues. For some people, mostly trolls, that is an intentional distinction. They might go into the movie determined to hate it or love it. However, for most people it is more subconscious.

For a number of reasons, some legitimate and some not, Star Wars has lost a lot of good will. People are noticing plot holes that they didn't notice before. Movies like Solo are deemed terrible when, at least in my opinion, they are decent films. I've seen a lot of horrific cinema in my time. Solo is not on that level.

By contrast, Marvel has a lot of good will right now, which they deserve. Kevin Feige is brilliant and runs a really tight ship. When a lesser-received film comes out like Thor 2, people just shrug and assume the next one will be better. Star Wars receives no such charity, which I think is somewhat deserved but mostly unfortunate. 90% of the people who make Star Wars movies genuinely love the property, there have just been some missteps along the way. I don't agree with the idea that Lucasfilm doesn't care about Star Wars or are just on a cash grab. I think the new films deserve a little more good will than they are getting, but again, it's all subjective.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Respect your opinion, but disagree. No good will for the corporation pumping these movies out as fast as possible. Plenty of good will for the actors themselves and those who are well-intentioned in their involvement of the franchise.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

But it's kind of hard to separate the two, isn't it? For example, maybe the executives at Lucasfilm just want some cold, hard cash. However, they hire a lot of very talented people to make their movies, and those people generally have good intentions.

Does that mean that the film deserves good will or ire? And perhaps in contradiction to what I said earlier, does it have to be either? Can a film be both a cash grab and a genuine attempt at art? In the case of The Last Jedi, can it be both a missed opportunity and a decent film?

I think the answer to a lot of these questions is potentially grey. However, in today's climate, everything is a 0/10 or a 10/10. I can't remember reading a single review of The Last Jedi that wasn't overwhelmingly negative or positive.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

You're right... and I didn't mean to give the impression that I was considering the fact that they're in pump out movies when judging the movies themselves. But I can't help to think that is part of the issue. Could TLJ have benefited from the traditional 3 years instead of 2? Perhaps. And with all of that said, I really liked TFA and LOVE R1.

[gmillerdrake]

Could TLJ have benefited from the traditional 3 years instead of 2? Perhaps.

Outside of a couple points from what I can see the issue with TLJ with most 'fans' is the fact they didn't turn Luke into this 'great' Jedi Knight who spent the whole movie light saber dueling and kicking butt.

I personally like the way they handled his story....but admittedly 'wish' they'd have gone a different direction to fit my personal desires but when looking at the film subjectively taking my ambition out of it I like his story better that way

[pg1067]

I think that Star Wars is a good example of how good will influences our subjective opinions. If you are generally enjoying a movie or at least respect its intentions, you're more likely to let stuff go. If the movie feels off, then you're more likely to notice issues. For some people, mostly trolls, that is an intentional distinction. They might go into the movie determined to hate it or love it. However, for most people it is more subconscious.

For a number of reasons, some legitimate and some not, Star Wars has lost a lot of good will. People are noticing plot holes that they didn't notice before. Movies like Solo are deemed terrible when, at least in my opinion, they are decent films. I've seen a lot of horrific cinema in my time. Solo is not on that level.

I generally agree with all of this.  However, I think there's also something to the fact that social media and discussion boards didn't exist when Eps. 4-6 were released and were still in their relative infancy when Eps. 1-3 were released.  There is simply a lot more opportunity to discuss and dissect these new movies.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

You're right... and I didn't mean to give the impression that I was considering the fact that they're in pump out movies when judging the movies themselves. But I can't help to think that is part of the issue. Could TLJ have benefited from the traditional 3 years instead of 2? Perhaps. And with all of that said, I really liked TFA and LOVE R1.

Amen!

[ariich]

I think that Star Wars is a good example of how good will influences our subjective opinions. If you are generally enjoying a movie or at least respect its intentions, you're more likely to let stuff go. If the movie feels off, then you're more likely to notice issues. For some people, mostly trolls, that is an intentional distinction. They might go into the movie determined to hate it or love it. However, for most people it is more subconscious.

For a number of reasons, some legitimate and some not, Star Wars has lost a lot of good will. People are noticing plot holes that they didn't notice before. Movies like Solo are deemed terrible when, at least in my opinion, they are decent films. I've seen a lot of horrific cinema in my time. Solo is not on that level.

I generally agree with all of this.  However, I think there's also something to the fact that social media and discussion boards didn't exist when Eps. 4-6 were released and were still in their relative infancy when Eps. 1-3 were released.  There is simply a lot more opportunity to discuss and dissect these new movies.

I'd also add that (according to my parents anyway) a lot of people disliked Empire when it first came out, and now it's regarded by many fans as the best in the series.

[pg1067]

I think that Star Wars is a good example of how good will influences our subjective opinions. If you are generally enjoying a movie or at least respect its intentions, you're more likely to let stuff go. If the movie feels off, then you're more likely to notice issues. For some people, mostly trolls, that is an intentional distinction. They might go into the movie determined to hate it or love it. However, for most people it is more subconscious.

For a number of reasons, some legitimate and some not, Star Wars has lost a lot of good will. People are noticing plot holes that they didn't notice before. Movies like Solo are deemed terrible when, at least in my opinion, they are decent films. I've seen a lot of horrific cinema in my time. Solo is not on that level.

I generally agree with all of this.  However, I think there's also something to the fact that social media and discussion boards didn't exist when Eps. 4-6 were released and were still in their relative infancy when Eps. 1-3 were released.  There is simply a lot more opportunity to discuss and dissect these new movies.

I'd also add that (according to my parents anyway) a lot of people disliked Empire when it first came out, and now it's regarded by many fans as the best in the series.

Can't say I remember that, but I was just shy of 10 years old when I saw Star Wars at a drive-in theater with my sister, brother-in-law, and crying >1 year old niece and only 12 1/2 years old when I saw Empire.  But yeah...a sense of nostalgia shields the original trilogy from the sort of scrutiny to which the new movies are subjected.

This brings something else to mind.  While some people went and saw Eps. 4-6 multiple times in the theater, most folks saw them only once or twice in the theaters and then didn't see them again for several years until they were released on VHS, Beta, etc.  The opportunities that now exist for folks to nit pick (and to publicize their nit picking) simply didn't exist back then.

[pg1067]

Random curiosity:  What is/was the oldest Star Wars home video release you own (or owned)?

This is mine (from 1992), and I still have it.

[jingle.boy]

Outside of a couple points from what I can see the issue with TLJ with most 'fans' is the fact they didn't turn Luke into this 'great' Jedi Knight who spent the whole movie light saber dueling and kicking butt.

On that matter, I can see why - especially for 'fogeys' - this was a big fucking deal.  The franchise spent three fucking movies (IV-VI) setting Luke up to be exactly that, and in one fell swoop, wiped that out when he tossed his light-sabre over his shoulder.  From that point, he was just a grumpy old man.

For me personally, it wasn't a *huge* deal, just a let-down that TFA had set it up for him to be the 'saviour' for Rebellion 2.0', and instantly Rian ditched that notion.. and then that took Rey - the anchor character of this trilogy - out of the primary storyline for what?? .. 1/2 of the movie?

[ProfessorPeart]

I have the same set. I believe it cost me $100 at Blockbuster Music. Yes, Blockbuster Music.

Still looks brand new.

[ariich]

and then that took Rey - the anchor character of this trilogy - out of the primary storyline for what?? .. 1/2 of the movie?

For sure, it's not like the original trilogy took the anchor character out of the main storyline for half the middle movie or anything.

As for Luke's story, and indeed other things that appeared to be set up but got subverted (like Rey's heritage), I can appreciate that some people don't like that sort of thing. Personally I enjoy it when things are unexpected or surprising. Again back to the OT, Vader being Luke's father came entirely out of nowhere but it was brilliant and ended up hugely iconic. A lot of the OT (especially A New Hope) doesn't subvert expectations like that, and I just find it less interesting. Empire was phenomenal because (for me) it did things that were unexpected and subverted expectations. TLJ is probably my second favourite in the franchise for exactly the same reason.

[jingle.boy]

and then that took Rey - the anchor character of this trilogy - out of the primary storyline for what?? .. 1/2 of the movie?

For sure, it's not like the original trilogy took the anchor character out of the main storyline for half the middle movie or anything.

Touche.  I guess the difference for me is that Luke on Dagobah was a critical piece of the growth of Luke's character.  I'm still not sure I understood the growth of the Rey in that stretch with Luke.

[ariich]

and then that took Rey - the anchor character of this trilogy - out of the primary storyline for what?? .. 1/2 of the movie?

For sure, it's not like the original trilogy took the anchor character out of the main storyline for half the middle movie or anything.

Touche.  I guess the difference for me is that Luke on Dagobah was a critical piece of the growth of Luke's character.  I'm still not sure I understood the growth of the Rey in that stretch with Luke.

I don't have a strong view either way on it yet, I mean I thought TLJ was fantastic overall, but it's part of an ongoing story and so I'll need to see how it plays out.

But yeah mainly I was being facetious.

[bosk1]

and then that took Rey - the anchor character of this trilogy - out of the primary storyline for what?? .. 1/2 of the movie?

For sure, it's not like the original trilogy took the anchor character out of the main storyline for half the middle movie or anything.

Touche.  I guess the difference for me is that Luke on Dagobah was a critical piece of the growth of Luke's character.  I'm still not sure I understood the growth of the Rey in that stretch with Luke.

It is pretty similar.  But the problem is, IMO, it is much clearer that Rey's journey takes place so quickly.  Luke's does as well, but it is less clear that he is only on Dagobah and apparently grows enough to survive a battle with Vader after only a couple of days of training.  It feels like it could possibly be longer, even though it isn't.  With Rey, we KNOW it is only a similarly short timespan because we have the space chase in the back of our minds.  This is one area where I feel like modern moving making has fallen down that could SO easily be remedied.  In TLOTR, you really FEEL the heroes' journey AS A JOURNEY because it takes so long and there are many cues that show the passage of time.  In Star Wars, the Marvel films, etc., you don't.  Everything happens almost instantaneously, and it doesn't feel genuine as a result.  I know this doesn't bother most people, but I guess it bothers me both because it is so unrealistic and because it could easily be cured just by saying that time passed, and having some cues in the film showing that time passed.

[pg1067]

I have the same set. I believe it cost me $100 at Blockbuster Music. Yes, Blockbuster Music.

Still looks brand new.

My guess is that I got mine at Suncoast Video at a mall near where I live.  The pictures I posted are not mind (just images I found on the web).  I used to have three or four different sets of VHS tapes of the original trilogy (plus a set of DVDs).  I think I may have gotten rid of some of the VHS sets when we moved about five years ago.

[Cool Chris]

Dang, haven't seen the word "Letterbox" in forever. I remember trying to explain that to everyone and the difference between that and Pan and Scan and having to argue against "BUT IT DOESN'T FILL MY TV SCREEN"

[ProfessorPeart]

Dang, haven't seen the word "Letterbox" in forever. I remember trying to explain that to everyone and the difference between that and Pan and Scan and having to argue against "BUT IT DOESN'T FILL MY TV SCREEN"

I was one of the 'it doesn't fill my screen' idiots. Then I bought Star Trek IV on VHS and it opened with a little documentary hosted by Leonard Nimoy, as he was the director, and he explained the difference between Letterbox and Pan and Scan with split screen examples. From that moment on, I changed sides. Spock schooled me on aspect ratios.

[Samsara]

Dang, haven't seen the word "Letterbox" in forever. I remember trying to explain that to everyone and the difference between that and Pan and Scan and having to argue against "BUT IT DOESN'T FILL MY TV SCREEN"

I was one of the 'it doesn't fill my screen' idiots. Then I bought Star Trek IV on VHS and it opened with a little documentary hosted by Leonard Nimoy, as he was the director, and he explained the difference between Letterbox and Pan and Scan with split screen examples. From that moment on, I changed sides. Spock schooled me on aspect ratios.

hahaha. I did the same thing when I saw that on Star Trek IV. 

[Phoenix87x]

My oldest version that I have (or used to have) was the 97 special edition VHS tapes



Got it for christmas that year and Boy oh boy, did I watch the ever living shit out of those tapes. Good times.

[Cool Chris]

I had that too, found it recently going through some old stuff at my parents' house. But mine was silver. Is there a difference? Widescreen/P&S?

I was one of the 'it doesn't fill my screen' idiots. Then I bought Star Trek IV on VHS and it opened with a little documentary hosted by Leonard Nimoy, as he was the director, and he explained the difference between Letterbox and Pan and Scan with split screen examples. From that moment on, I changed sides. Spock schooled me on aspect ratios.

Roger Ebert was a big proponent of it early on. I remember seeing him talk about it in a very clear "Let me educate you without talking down to you" way which he was good at. The video store I frequented had a nice binder prepared with pictures and such to show to customers.

[Phoenix87x]

I had that too, found it recently going through some old stuff at my parents' house. But mine was silver. Is there a difference? Widescreen/P&S?

You are correct and oh man, did that question drive me nuts as a little kid. "oh, its silver. It must be better. It must have different stuff, what could it be?"     

But yeah, the silver was just wide screen, which I didn't even know what that was back in 97. We just had the full screen tv.

[jammindude]

I still got this bad boy....

[Adami]

Oh sorry, I was looking for the Star Wars thread, not sure how I accidentally clicked on the Old Fogey's thread.

[jammindude]

Oh sorry, I was looking for the Star Wars thread, not sure how I accidentally clicked on the Old Fogey's thread.

Ahhhh yes, I remember when I first saw your grandmother.   It was in a mosh pit at an Alice in Chains concert in the summer of ought two.....

[glazed look of nostalgia]   Ahhhh, she was a cute little filly.  She was wearing her nipple ring....you see, that was the style at the time...   

[Cool Chris]

I had that version jammindude has - might still be at my parents' house unless they purged it as part of the "You are 40 we aren't keeping all your shit in our house no more."

[pg1067]

My oldest version that I have (or used to have) was the 97 special edition VHS tapes



Got it for christmas that year and Boy oh boy, did I watch the ever living shit out of those tapes. Good times.

I had that too -- the silver one, which I think was the letterbox version, whereas the gold version was "pan and scan."  I think I got rid of the VHS version when I got the DVD version.

I still got this bad boy....

I think I had that one too.  It was released in 1995 -- in between the "Special Letterbox Collector's Edition" (1992) and the "Special Editions" (1997)."  I'm not sure if I still have it somewhere or, if not, why I got rid of it.  If nothing else, the box is cool.

[cramx3]

My oldest version that I have (or used to have) was the 97 special edition VHS tapes



Got it for christmas that year and Boy oh boy, did I watch the ever living shit out of those tapes. Good times.

Same here, I had these Gold VHS tapes.  Got many plays with them back as a kid.

[gmillerdrake]

Would be curious to know just how much $$$ Lucas made off of re-re-releasing the OT those multiple times?