 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 7, 2019 - 7:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
The difference between a Star Wars and a Star Trek nerd, a Star Trek nerd can still admit a movie like Final Frontier is actually not a very good movie and still say they like it, whereas a Star Wars nerd cannot do that. Hence, the Return of the Jedi and the prequels are "actually pretty good". Return of the Jedi is better than the first two prequels. But the the only Star Wars prequel that is a "good movie" is Revenge of the Sith. But, in the tormented Star Wars nerd-dom, they despise Rogue One, which is better than Jedi, Phantom, Attack of the Clones, and almost as good as Revenge of the Sith, and they really really despise The Last Jedi, which is better than any of those films, but they will talk about "how good the prequels really are."
My mileage may vary slightly but that's a pretty accurate breakdown from someone with critical thinking skills and not blinded by fandom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Rogue One we learn the Death Star was capable of jumping to hyperspace.
I thought that was always established, but perhaps I'm wrong...
Yes it was already established in the original film or strongly implied at the very least.
Yeah, I thought it was clear. In Star Wars, the Death Star travels from wherever it was to Alderaan, and then later to Yavin 4. How else does the Death Star get there? I guess since it is described as a space station rather than a space ship, some didn't think it capable of traveling great distances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 7, 2019 - 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
[startquote
I think that is a fair criticism, but I do think comparing Star Trek films with Star Wars films is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Star Trek films are like Bond films, in that they are mostly islands, and so if a clunker gets released, most fans will walk out and say "I hope the next one's better". Plus, although the characters develop in Star Trek films, they rarely evolve. So if a character does something that seems out of character in one film, it doesn't necessarily impact how the character is handled in another film.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is seen as one ongoing saga, and fans tend to group them together, so that if a bad film comes out, it tarnishes the rest of the series. I don't agree with that view, but it is common all the same. Also, many characters in Star Wars evolve, and they can evolve in ways that some fans hate, such as how Luke Skywalker was handled in The Last Jedi, or Anakin Skywalker not being the fallen hero fans wanted. As such, it is tough for the next film to do damage control, since the character has been altered in a way that rarely happens in Star Trek. Star Trek, for example, didn't kill off Kirk until the producers thought they were done with the the original series films.
None of this is meant to be a criticism of either series. I just think the two are much different beasts.
I was not comparing the films of Trek and Wars at all. I am talking about how the fans of these films grade them with a very different schema. Trek fans, in large, admit when Trek has not been that good, but they are rather more honest to simply to say, "I like it anyway". There is nothing wrong in saying you like a bad film or imperfect film, I like quite a few of them. The point of what I said though, is that Star Wars fans are always trying rationalize their way around what are pretty well established as critically not successful films, and ironically heaping hatred upon the newest ones which are critically more approved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 7, 2019 - 8:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
The difference between a Star Wars and a Star Trek nerd, a Star Trek nerd can still admit a movie like Final Frontier is actually not a very good movie and still say they like it, whereas a Star Wars nerd cannot do that. Hence, the Return of the Jedi and the prequels are "actually pretty good". Return of the Jedi is better than the first two prequels. But the the only Star Wars prequel that is a "good movie" is Revenge of the Sith. But, in the tormented Star Wars nerd-dom, they despise Rogue One, which is better than Jedi, Phantom, Attack of the Clones, and almost as good as Revenge of the Sith, and they really really despise The Last Jedi, which is better than any of those films, but they will talk about "how good the prequels really are."
My mileage may vary slightly but that's a pretty accurate breakdown from someone with critical thinking skills and not blinded by fandom.
Thanks Solium
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you can see the matte lines on the Tie fighters, it generally means your TV's brightness is set too high. Try turning down the brightness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those garbage mattes used to be very apparent on TV when watching Star Wars and old Star Trek episodes. Back in the day, the contrast was way high probably so we could make out what we were seeing over shitty signals. Today...well...at best you have the original SW versions on VHS, Laser or the crummy bonus discs from like 20 years ago (or have the "unspecialized Editions"). Star Trek's prints were color corrected and the contrast lowered, but the VHS/laserdisc prints are still pretty bright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think GOT has gone downhill in quality, especially with Season 8/Episode 4, where there just too many loose ends in the plot. With only 2 episodes to go, it appears the showrunners are desperately trying to tie up loose ends.
Instead of busying himself with TV projects, and playing celebrity, GRRM would be wiser to finish the final books in his much-touted cycle. He had agreed with his publisher to submit Vol. 6, “The Winds of Winter,” almost 3 years ago, and still hasn’t finished it, let alone Vol. VII.
Like many speculators, I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t live long enough to finish them. He’s not young, besides being obese. Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between a Star Wars and a Star Trek nerd, a Star Trek nerd can still admit a movie like Final Frontier is actually not a very good movie and still say they like it, whereas a Star Wars nerd cannot do that. Hence, the Return of the Jedi and the prequels are "actually pretty good". Return of the Jedi is better than the first two prequels. But the the only Star Wars prequel that is a "good movie" is Revenge of the Sith. But, in the tormented Star Wars nerd-dom, they despise Rogue One, which is better than Jedi, Phantom, Attack of the Clones, and almost as good as Revenge of the Sith, and they really really despise The Last Jedi, which is better than any of those films, but they will talk about "how good the prequels really are."
The problem with fandom overall is that it tries to become monolithic (because strength in numbers?), self-aggrandizing (because only fans matter?), and objectively qualify art at the same time, and what individually thinking human can relate to that? In time, as franchises continue, such an institution is destined to polarize and fragment in entropy, resulting in perpetual resentment. Thus the bad reputation.
I think that is a fair criticism, but I do think comparing Star Trek films with Star Wars films is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Star Trek films are like Bond films, in that they are mostly islands, and so if a clunker gets released, most fans will walk out and say "I hope the next one's better". Plus, although the characters develop in Star Trek films, they rarely evolve. So if a character does something that seems out of character in one film, it doesn't necessarily impact how the character is handled in another film.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is seen as one ongoing saga, and fans tend to group them together, so that if a bad film comes out, it tarnishes the rest of the series. I don't agree with that view, but it is common all the same. Also, many characters in Star Wars evolve, and they can evolve in ways that some fans hate, such as how Luke Skywalker was handled in The Last Jedi, or Anakin Skywalker not being the fallen hero fans wanted. As such, it is tough for the next film to do damage control, since the character has been altered in a way that rarely happens in Star Trek. Star Trek, for example, didn't kill off Kirk until the producers thought they were done with the the original series films.
None of this is meant to be a criticism of either series. I just think the two are much different beasts.
Indeed, Star Trek was born from an episodic format, which translates well in its cinematic ventures (minus the Genesis trilogy from II-IV), whereas Star Wars was meant to be taken as a whole, even though it was presented out of order. Marvel Studios skirts that fine line in presenting tenuous story connections within a greater whole. No doubt there will be the inevitable fan chasm regarding Phase blocks or Arcs or what have you.
SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME---trailer released for the sequel.
The trailer landed pretty well with me. (cheap CGI aside) the jokes were funny and I like the over all premise of the film. Fury is bad ass again. Though I admittedly love Jon Favreau as an actor and director. He makes anything better. MJ however, Jesus! Captain Marvel you've got competition for ugliest personality on the planet. Could she be more of a stuck up, snot nosed, know it all little shit? How about smiling just once? It's disheartening Hollywood thinks this is the "face" of female empowerment.
I'm starting to fear that Webhead may never get over his need for a father figure. Gyllenhaal seems to be fulfilling that role now, even though he's obviously pulling a full-on Syndrome.
As for smiling women, see fan photoshops of male heroes smiling in response to that Captain Marvel "critique".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 7, 2019 - 12:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TominAtl
(Member)
|
The difference between a Star Wars and a Star Trek nerd, a Star Trek nerd can still admit a movie like Final Frontier is actually not a very good movie and still say they like it, whereas a Star Wars nerd cannot do that. Hence, the Return of the Jedi and the prequels are "actually pretty good". Return of the Jedi is better than the first two prequels. But the the only Star Wars prequel that is a "good movie" is Revenge of the Sith. But, in the tormented Star Wars nerd-dom, they despise Rogue One, which is better than Jedi, Phantom, Attack of the Clones, and almost as good as Revenge of the Sith, and they really really despise The Last Jedi, which is better than any of those films, but they will talk about "how good the prequels really are."
Meta-critic scores;
Return of the Jedi=58
Phantom Menace=51
Attack of the Clones=54
Revenge of the Sith=68
Rogue One=65
Last Jedi=85
I'm in agreement with your assessment of the prequels and sequels. Rogue One is a better film than most will accept or admit, and certainly better than the prequels, which were awkward, flat and uninspired. However Revenge of the Sith is certainly the best of the prequels and had more of a sense of the gravitas like that A New Hope and Empire. But it does certainly seem that the younger one is the more they liked the prequels. I work in an office full of Millennially aged people and nearly all really like the prequels. As far as The Last Jedi is concerned, I liked it as well and still don't understand the vitriol about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 7, 2019 - 12:59 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
The difference between a Star Wars and a Star Trek nerd, a Star Trek nerd can still admit a movie like Final Frontier is actually not a very good movie and still say they like it, whereas a Star Wars nerd cannot do that. Hence, the Return of the Jedi and the prequels are "actually pretty good". Return of the Jedi is better than the first two prequels. But the the only Star Wars prequel that is a "good movie" is Revenge of the Sith. But, in the tormented Star Wars nerd-dom, they despise Rogue One, which is better than Jedi, Phantom, Attack of the Clones, and almost as good as Revenge of the Sith, and they really really despise The Last Jedi, which is better than any of those films, but they will talk about "how good the prequels really are."
Meta-critic scores;
Return of the Jedi=58
Phantom Menace=51
Attack of the Clones=54
Revenge of the Sith=68
Rogue One=65
Last Jedi=85
I'm in agreement with your assessment of the prequels and sequels. Rogue One is a better film than most will accept or admit, and certainly better than the prequels, which were awkward, flat and uninspired. However Revenge of the Sith is certainly the best of the prequels and had more of a sense of the gravitas like that A New Hope and Empire. But it does certainly seem that the younger one is the more they liked the prequels. I work in an office full of Millennially aged people and nearly all really like the prequels. As far as The Last Jedi is concerned, I liked it as well and still don't understand the vitriol about it.
Oh, thanks. I think there is something of the "eternal childhood syndrome" going on with the millennial crowd, little kids that have adult lives. I mean childhood is great, at least for a lot of kids, I understand. But at some point most people realize that what you thought was pretty great as a kid, like a baloney sandwich, is not as great as you thought it was at that time. Forcing yourself to repeatedly see something through the distorted and smeary filter of nostalgia does not make it better. And they are bypassing something better in the process, I mean, like you said, the idea that they would rip apart Rogue One or Last Jedi and prefer Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones, that is just utterly silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 8, 2019 - 7:46 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
The difference between a Star Wars and a Star Trek nerd, a Star Trek nerd can still admit a movie like Final Frontier is actually not a very good movie and still say they like it, whereas a Star Wars nerd cannot do that. Hence, the Return of the Jedi and the prequels are "actually pretty good". Return of the Jedi is better than the first two prequels. But the the only Star Wars prequel that is a "good movie" is Revenge of the Sith. But, in the tormented Star Wars nerd-dom, they despise Rogue One, which is better than Jedi, Phantom, Attack of the Clones, and almost as good as Revenge of the Sith, and they really really despise The Last Jedi, which is better than any of those films, but they will talk about "how good the prequels really are."
Meta-critic scores;
Return of the Jedi=58
Phantom Menace=51
Attack of the Clones=54
Revenge of the Sith=68
Rogue One=65
Last Jedi=85
I'm in agreement with your assessment of the prequels and sequels. Rogue One is a better film than most will accept or admit, and certainly better than the prequels, which were awkward, flat and uninspired. However Revenge of the Sith is certainly the best of the prequels and had more of a sense of the gravitas like that A New Hope and Empire. But it does certainly seem that the younger one is the more they liked the prequels. I work in an office full of Millennially aged people and nearly all really like the prequels. As far as The Last Jedi is concerned, I liked it as well and still don't understand the vitriol about it.
Oh, thanks. I think there is something of the "eternal childhood syndrome" going on with the millennial crowd, little kids that have adult lives. I mean childhood is great, at least for a lot of kids, I understand. But at some point most people realize that what you thought was pretty great as a kid, like a baloney sandwich, is not as great as you thought it was at that time. Forcing yourself to repeatedly see something through the distorted and smeary filter of nostalgia does not make it better. And they are bypassing something better in the process, I mean, like you said, the idea that they would rip apart Rogue One or Last Jedi and prefer Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones, that is just utterly silly.
I have a bigger issue with the how consumers view modern day films as a whole. There's almost a tribal fever over their reactions. How they can love an MCU film, Jurassic Park sequel or Star Wars film but trash other films that are objectively as good (or as bad) dumbfounds me. Seems established franchises get a pass a lot of the time and are not viewed with the same critical eye as other films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Oh, thanks. I think there is something of the "eternal childhood syndrome" going on with the millennial crowd, little kids that have adult lives. I mean childhood is great, at least for a lot of kids, I understand. But at some point most people realize that what you thought was pretty great as a kid, like a baloney sandwich, is not as great as you thought it was at that time. Forcing yourself to repeatedly see something through the distorted and smeary filter of nostalgia does not make it better. And they are bypassing something better in the process, I mean, like you said, the idea that they would rip apart Rogue One or Last Jedi and prefer Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones, that is just utterly silly.
I guess I don't know that many millennial Star Wars fans, as I have never met anyone who prefers Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones to any other Star Wars movie. If Natalie Portman is hearing from a lot of fans who love those movies, great! I just don't think that reflects most Star Wars fandom. Plus, it is better that she is hearing positive feedback from the fans as opposed to the trolls that have been attacking Kelly Marie Tran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a bigger issue with the how consumers view modern day films as a whole. There's almost a tribal fever over their reactions. How they can love an MCU film, Jurassic Park sequel or Star Wars film but trash other films that are objectively as good (or as bad) dumbfounds me. Seems established franchises get a pass a lot of the time and are not viewed with the same critical eye as other films.
The problem lies in your own description. There is no such thing as an objectively good or bad movie. Most of the MCU films may seem garbage, or at best decent, but nothing special to you, but many others derive great enjoyment from watching them. And speculating that people go see those films because they are lemmings or give it a pass because it is attached to a franchise they love is condescending. People like what they like, and fans won't go see films out of brand loyalty that they otherwise aren't interest in seeing. If it was simple brand loyalty, Solo would have been a huge hit, Justice League wouldn't have tanked while Wonder Woman and Aquaman were big hits, and every MCU film would be a billion+ grossing film.
Personally, I can't explain the continued success of the Jurassic Park series, as I haven't genuinely enjoyed a Jurassic film since the original, but there are plenty of people who do seem to enjoy the series, so go figure. There are plenty of other movies people express love for that don't interest me, and movies that others attack that I enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 8, 2019 - 8:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I have a bigger issue with the how consumers view modern day films as a whole. There's almost a tribal fever over their reactions. How they can love an MCU film, Jurassic Park sequel or Star Wars film but trash other films that are objectively as good (or as bad) dumbfounds me. Seems established franchises get a pass a lot of the time and are not viewed with the same critical eye as other films.
The problem lies in your own description. There is no such thing as an objectively good or bad movie. Most of the MCU films may seem garbage, or at best decent, but nothing special to you, but many others derive great enjoyment from watching them. And speculating that people go see those films because they are lemmings or give it a pass because it is attached to a franchise they love is condescending. People like what they like, and fans won't go see films out of brand loyalty that they otherwise aren't interest in seeing. If it was simple brand loyalty, Solo would have been a huge hit, Justice League wouldn't have tanked while Wonder Woman and Aquaman were big hits, and every MCU film would be a billion+ grossing film.
Personally, I can't explain the continued success of the Jurassic Park series, as I haven't genuinely enjoyed a Jurassic film since the original, but there are plenty of people who do seem to enjoy the series, so go figure. There are plenty of other movies people express love for that don't interest me, and movies that others attack that I enjoy.
What I'm saying is the fandoms are more forgiving of weak characterization and stories in their beloved franchises where other films that are just as good are maligned. Regardless how I feel about one film over another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
