Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Seen any good movies or TV shows lately? Or anything so bad you just have to vent?
User avatar
Wayne
Host
Posts: 8142
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:40 pm

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby Wayne » Thu Jan 02, 2020 11:01 pm

Having two directors really hurt this trilogy and in essence made it 3 movies not a real trilogy.

For me Solo was the worst of all the movies including the prequels.

To me Star Wars is about the force users. They and lightsabers are what makes it interesting. Mandalorian was amazing and really hooked me even without that, but bringing in a force using baby really reinforced that.
Clementine Paddleford wrote:Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.

User avatar
tombombodil
3 for 3
Posts: 12152
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: Just south of the Barrow Downs
Contact:

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby tombombodil » Thu Jan 02, 2020 11:33 pm

Wayne wrote:To me Star Wars is about the force users. They and lightsabers are what makes it interesting. Mandalorian was amazing and really hooked me even without that, but bringing in a force using baby really reinforced that.


To me Star Wars is about the music.
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?

User avatar
clintmemo
Questing for the elusive New Title
Posts: 22715
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:38 am
Location: Louisville KY
Contact:

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby clintmemo » Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:36 am

To me, Star Wars is about spectacle. It's a space fantasy fairy tale.

I have liked all the Star Was movies - even TROS, though I would rank it my least favorite.

They really need to give the next trilogy to a person with a clear vision of what they want to do. Just rehashing older material is not going to work any more.

And don't recast older characters with younger versions.
2020 Goal: Develop a side hustle

User avatar
clintmemo
Questing for the elusive New Title
Posts: 22715
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:38 am
Location: Louisville KY
Contact:

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby clintmemo » Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:56 am

tombombodil wrote:


If that really does become prevalent, I wonder if the value of motion capture/look alike/voice over actors/actresses will go up.


No.
In fact, it will go down - probably a lot - assuming the process becomes fast and cheap.
Yes, it will be like any other profession in which the elites (Anthony Serkis) can demand a big price, but for the average actor, their salaries are likely to go way down. Acting is a profession where how you look is vitally important. Tom Cruise is a star because he looks like Tom Cruise. When anyone can look Tom Cruise, suddenly the supply of actors that look like Tom Cruise goes way up. The demand of actors for a particular part is not likely to go up much but the supply will increase dramatically.

Honestly, though, I think it will be a fad that will die a quick death. People are going to get tired of seeing the Uncanny Valley version of James Dean or Jimmy Stewart or anyone else. Also, no matter how good the process is, it will always be cheaper to use an existing actor that to do motion capture. So unless you really, really need Peter Lorre's avatar in a role, you are going to hire a conventional actor.

Also, if you look at the evidence of that article, the track record is not exactly stellar in terms of box office numbers. Rogue One, Captain Marvel and The Irishman may have been hugely financially successful, but Gemini Man, Terminator Dark Fate and Blade Runner 2049 all tanked.
2020 Goal: Develop a side hustle

User avatar
Bai Shen
Skies of Glass Historian
Posts: 6720
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:09 am

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby Bai Shen » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:33 pm

Wayne wrote:Having two directors really hurt this trilogy and in essence made it 3 movies not a real trilogy.

For me Solo was the worst of all the movies including the prequels.

To me Star Wars is about the force users. They and lightsabers are what makes it interesting. Mandalorian was amazing and really hooked me even without that, but bringing in a force using baby really reinforced that.


I liked Solo but wish they hadn't crammed in every important event in Han's life into two weeks and one movie.
Vote Mumblebear/CHAINSAW

User avatar
Wihzerd
LF's frikin' laser attendant
Posts: 2384
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:23 am
Location: Lord Foul's Lair

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby Wihzerd » Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:02 am

One of my least favorite elements of the Rey trilogy is that it has a tendency to go EXTREMELY overboard with the planet killer super weapons.

Let's start with Starkiller Base. It could have been shown as a way to build a Death Star on a "budget" by rigging a planetoid instead of outright building a moon. Heck, the ability of Starkiller Base to eat a star could have been the super weapon itself. This could have been a way to show the First Order has aspirations to become the new Galactic Empire, but lacks the resources and is forced to get creative. Instead, we get a hyperspace weapon that wipes out the most important planets and fleets of the New Republic in one shot from the other side of the galaxy. Too much.

Then we get Palpatine's secretly constructed fleet of Star Destroyers. When one of those things was shown to have a superlaser, my immediate thought was that this must be like the Eclipse in the EU. In the EU, you could equip a Super Star Destroyer-sized ship with a less powerful superlaser that could destroy the SURFACE of a planet, rendering it uninhabitable. What you get is more economical than a Deathstar and more effective than an orbital bombardment fleet. Then I saw the planet crack apart and I realized that they just packed all the power of a Death Star into the relatively tiny package of a Star Destroyer. Of which they have an entire fleet. TOO. MUCH.

Meanwhile, the Resistance has resources inferior to the Rebellion from a generation before. Because why show progress when you can have an even weaker underdog? I mean, it's not like we could have the New Republic's covert support for the Resistance be a setup to the New Republic having a Pearl Harbor moment, when they are forced into full-scale war after years of peacetime military downscaling. No, let's just have everything the Rebellion fought for be wiped out in ONE SHOT.

User avatar
clintmemo
Questing for the elusive New Title
Posts: 22715
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:38 am
Location: Louisville KY
Contact:

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby clintmemo » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:14 am

Wihzerd wrote:One of my least favorite elements of the Rey trilogy is that it has a tendency to go EXTREMELY overboard with the planet killer super weapons.

Let's start with Starkiller Base. It could have been shown as a way to build a Death Star on a "budget" by rigging a planetoid instead of outright building a moon. Heck, the ability of Starkiller Base to outright eat a star could have been the super weapon itself. This could have been a way to show the First Order has aspirations to become the new Galactic Empire, but lacks the resources and is forced to get creative. Instead, we get a hyperspace weapon that wipes out the most important planets and fleets of the New Republic in one shot from the other side of the galaxy. Too much.



... that everyone can somehow see travelling across space!

Wihzerd wrote:
Then we get Palpatine's secretly constructed fleet of Star Destroyers. When one of those things was shown to have a superlaser, my immediate thought was that this must be like the Eclipse in the EU. In the EU, you could equip a Super Star Destroyer-sized ship with a less powerful superlaser that could destroy the SURFACE of a planet, rendering it uninhabitable. What you get is more economical than a Deathstar and more effective than an orbital bombardment fleet. Then I saw the planet crack apart and I realized that they just packed all the power of a Death Star into the relatively tiny package of a Star Destroyer. Of which they have an entire fleet. TOO. MUCH.

Meanwhile, the Resistance has resources inferior to the Rebellion from a generation before. Because why show progress when you can have an even weaker underdog? I mean, it's not like we could have the New Republic's covert support for the Resistance be a setup to the New Republic having a Pearl Harbor moment, when they are forced into full-scale war after years of peacetime military downscaling. No, let's just have everything the Rebellion fought for be wiped out in ONE SHOT.


When the super weapons become that over powered, they become silly. It's like later seasons of Classic Dr Who where every villain has the power to "destroy the whole universe! <gasp>!"
2020 Goal: Develop a side hustle

User avatar
John
Host
Posts: 4779
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:20 am

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby John » Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:31 pm

The Star Wars characters live in a hell world that always reverts to the plot as it was in 1977. The empire always builds a planet destroying superweapon, the rebellion always blows it up, and it never matters. Han was more or less openly aware of this in Force Awakens.

User avatar
clintmemo
Questing for the elusive New Title
Posts: 22715
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:38 am
Location: Louisville KY
Contact:

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby clintmemo » Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:01 pm

John wrote:The Star Wars characters live in a hell world that always reverts to the plot as it was in 1977. The empire always builds a planet destroying superweapon, the rebellion always blows it up, and it never matters. Han was more or less openly aware of this in Force Awakens.



I have heard that Star Wars apparent need to have so many plots involving a little ship flying inside of a big ship and blowing it up as some kind of sexual metaphor.
Personally, I think it is just lazy writing.
2020 Goal: Develop a side hustle

User avatar
tombombodil
3 for 3
Posts: 12152
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: Just south of the Barrow Downs
Contact:

Re: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker [SPOILERS THAT NUMBER LIKE STARS IN THE GALAXY]

Postby tombombodil » Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:53 pm

clintmemo wrote:
John wrote:The Star Wars characters live in a hell world that always reverts to the plot as it was in 1977. The empire always builds a planet destroying superweapon, the rebellion always blows it up, and it never matters. Han was more or less openly aware of this in Force Awakens.



I have heard that Star Wars apparent need to have so many plots involving a little ship flying inside of a big ship and blowing it up as some kind of sexual metaphor.
Personally, I think it is just lazy writing.


Goes to show you can devalue absolutely anything by either over doing it, and/or half-assing it. Stories can only get away with being formulaic or repetitive, when they have something else at their core that is the reason people enjoy them. For example almost every single book in Terry Pratchett's Death series has more or less the exact same set up and structure and pretty similar resolutions. But in those books the appeal is in the charm, the comedy, the vibrant characters, and the ridiculously unique creativeness expressed in the tiny little details and diversions. All the rest of that stuff is so much more important it doesn't really matter that each book traces the same basic narrative patterns.
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?
Have you found the yellow sign?


Return to “Moving Pictures”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests