Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****
-
@mooshld said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
Guardians of the Galaxy was just as stand-alone as Solo. Absolutely killed it. The massive difference is that Marvel have been building up huge momentum since Iron Man. SW destroyed that momentum with TLJ. There is no farking way Solo bombs if that film was better received, regardless of when it's released. While you may have loved TLJ for some inexplicable reason, shit loads of people didn't. Just look at the fan ratings. That film was toxic. Complaining about timing, SW saturation etc. are just ways of deflecting from the fact that TLJ was complete shit and the fans voted with their wallets.
Maybe you're correct but I think the fact that everyone knew solo would not add momentum to the main story line was a factor. For Marvel you need to see each new movie to keep up with the story to prepare for the next one.
Nobody was thinking shit I need to see the back story about a guy they killed in the second to last movie to prepare myself for the next star wars film. Well I certainly didn't think that.
Marvel is now starting to falter a bit. Ant man and the wasp was not the hit Ragnarok was.
I'm not sure you can say that after one film. They seem to be happy to put out heaps of films in a short time and most of them do pretty well. The venom and captain marvel are up next. The follow up to infinity war will be big
-
@canefan said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I'm not sure you can say that after one film. They seem to be happy to put out heaps of films in a short time and most of them do pretty well. The venom and captain marvel are up next. The follow up to infinity war will be big
Is it one film? Thor the dark world didn't do great either. I am sure there are others that just did okay. I have no interest in venom personally as I don't think it is needed for infinity war. Captain Marvel however I well need to see.
Totally agree Infinity war 2 will be massive. But I wouldn't be surprised if it receives a mixed reception. You are never going to resolve killing half the universe without pissing some people off.
-
@mooshld said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
Guardians of the Galaxy was just as stand-alone as Solo. Absolutely killed it. The massive difference is that Marvel have been building up huge momentum since Iron Man. SW destroyed that momentum with TLJ. There is no farking way Solo bombs if that film was better received, regardless of when it's released. While you may have loved TLJ for some inexplicable reason, shit loads of people didn't. Just look at the fan ratings. That film was toxic. Complaining about timing, SW saturation etc. are just ways of deflecting from the fact that TLJ was complete shit and the fans voted with their wallets.
Maybe you're correct but I think the fact that everyone knew solo would not add momentum to the main story line was a factor. For Marvel you need to see each new movie to keep up with the story to prepare for the next one.
Nobody was thinking shit I need to see the back story about a guy they killed in the second to last movie to prepare myself for the next star wars film. Well I certainly didn't think that.
Marvel is now starting to falter a bit. Ant man and the wasp was not the hit Ragnarok was.
You didn't need to watch any other Marvel films to keep up with Guardians or Dr Strange.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
You didn't need to watch any other Marvel films to keep up with Guardians or Dr Strange.
Correct but you did need to watch them to know who the hell these guys who just showed up in infinity war or civil war are.
I guess for me the avengers story thread is all about bringing people together and building anticipation of that. So I need to watch those other films to find out where these people all are and how they are getting to where they need to be to meet up.
Prequels don't do that for me really. Especially when you have already met the character seen them in 4 films and watched them die.
-
I disliked TLJ so much, I turned it off with about 20mins to go. I actually enjoyed Solo. Thought it was very entertaining and paid just enough homage. Pity it didn't come out first.
-
@mooshld said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
You didn't need to watch any other Marvel films to keep up with Guardians or Dr Strange.
Correct but you did need to watch them to know who the hell these guys who just showed up in infinity war or civil war are.
I guess for me the avengers story thread is all about bringing people together and building anticipation of that. So I need to watch those other films to find out where these people all are and how they are getting to where they need to be to meet up.
Prequels don't do that for me really. Especially when you have already met the character seen them in 4 films and watched them die.
The Solo films were always a ridiculous idea. You already had a young Solo in ANH. It makes even less sense when they just killed him off.
It should be noted that the woman who green lighted this debacle has just had her contract extended.
-
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
-
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Or it was just because the previous SW film was utter shit and they wouldn't part with their hard earned to watch another one. That tends to happen when the filmmakers care more about making political statements than developing good characters and stories.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
Or it was just because the previous SW film was utter shit and they wouldn't part with their hard earned to watch another one. That tends to happen when the filmmakers care more about making political statements than developing good characters and stories.
I didn't read this whole thread, and I am sure I am going to regret asking this. But what political statements were made?
I thought TLJ was a bit weak in places but not a bad flick for star wars. I thought the same about solo I wouldn't watch it twice but it was like a fun heist movie. Maybe it went over my head but I don't remember any Bono like political speeches.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Or it was just because the previous SW film was utter shit and they wouldn't part with their hard earned to watch another one. That tends to happen when the filmmakers care more about making political statements than developing good characters and stories.
See, that's just your interpretation on the movie and that's fair enough, you can interpret things however you think.
All movies about conflict or war will convey some sort of position. The difference is that in the OT days the political undertones were simple. Good v Bad. It was easy then because despite domestic economic politics there were common 'bad guys'. WWII was still in memories or only a generation past, the Cold War was still going etc etc. Mostly there wasn't the collective focussing on day to day issues that the internet brought about.
Now we have people getting further and further apart on societal views as each 'side' gets defensive over challenges to their thoughts and we get the endless tedious name calling and labelling that groups individual thoughts or stances into easily targetable factions. Say you don't care about gay characters in a movie and suddenly you go from being someone who really doesn't give a shit to a card carrying 'social justice warrior' (as if you attend a club or something).
The producers of these movies are on record saying they are only bringing reflections of their experiences to play rather than deliberately campaigning. Isn't that the point of a producer? Bringing a view in that may be different?
If you don't like the movie for its storyline or characters that's fine. But if you are so sensitive about other's life views that they ruin your enjoyment of a movie that is fantasy then you are verging on reading way too much into shit.Plenty of movies I enjoyed watching that wouldn't fit with my personal view on life, but if they entertain then they have served their purpose.
As for Solo, watch it for what it is not for what offended you from another movie.
-
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Or it was just because the previous SW film was utter shit and they wouldn't part with their hard earned to watch another one. That tends to happen when the filmmakers care more about making political statements than developing good characters and stories.
See, that's just your interpretation on the movie and that's fair enough, you can interpret things however you think.
All movies about conflict or war will convey some sort of position. The difference is that in the OT days the political undertones were simple. Good v Bad. It was easy then because despite domestic economic politics there were common 'bad guys'. WWII was still in memories or only a generation past, the Cold War was still going etc etc. Mostly there wasn't the collective focussing on day to day issues that the internet brought about.
Now we have people getting further and further apart on societal views as each 'side' gets defensive over challenges to their thoughts and we get the endless tedious name calling and labelling that groups individual thoughts or stances into easily targetable factions. Say you don't care about gay characters in a movie and suddenly you go from being someone who really doesn't give a shit to a card carrying 'social justice warrior' (as if you attend a club or something).
The producers of these movies are on record saying they are only bringing reflections of their experiences to play rather than deliberately campaigning. Isn't that the point of a producer? Bringing a view in that may be different?
If you don't like the movie for its storyline or characters that's fine. But if you are so sensitive about other's life views that they ruin your enjoyment of a movie that is fantasy then you are verging on reading way too much into shit.Plenty of movies I enjoyed watching that wouldn't fit with my personal view on life, but if they entertain then they have served their purpose.
As for Solo, watch it for what it is not for what offended you from another movie.
Well if the producers claim that then it must be right. I mean characters like Holdo and Rose are just a complete coincidence. SW was clearly crying out for a pink haired lesbian and a dumpy Asian chick. Not to mention a robot fighting for robot rights. Or pan-sexual Lando.
GL saw the Ewoks as the Viet Cong so it's not like there haven't been political undertones in SW films. The problem is when it is to the detriment of the films they make. Ray is a joke of a character. A ridiculous Mary Sue who is the result of Kathleen Kennedy's obsession with a strong female lead". TLJ was an abortion. Here's a novel idea. Make a fucking space opera first then insert your politics. Not the other way round.
But I guess it's your side Crucial and that's all people like you give a shit about. Even if the quality of these films falls off a cliff as a result.
-
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Really ? Have you not seen Rogue one?
-
@mn5 said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Really ? Have you not seen Rogue one?
Funny, I didn't really feel that RO was that similar in style to the old films. Didn't stop it being a very good film for me. In fact, after TFA, it was refreshing to feel like SW stepped out of their lane for a change
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Or it was just because the previous SW film was utter shit and they wouldn't part with their hard earned to watch another one. That tends to happen when the filmmakers care more about making political statements than developing good characters and stories.
See, that's just your interpretation on the movie and that's fair enough, you can interpret things however you think.
All movies about conflict or war will convey some sort of position. The difference is that in the OT days the political undertones were simple. Good v Bad. It was easy then because despite domestic economic politics there were common 'bad guys'. WWII was still in memories or only a generation past, the Cold War was still going etc etc. Mostly there wasn't the collective focussing on day to day issues that the internet brought about.
Now we have people getting further and further apart on societal views as each 'side' gets defensive over challenges to their thoughts and we get the endless tedious name calling and labelling that groups individual thoughts or stances into easily targetable factions. Say you don't care about gay characters in a movie and suddenly you go from being someone who really doesn't give a shit to a card carrying 'social justice warrior' (as if you attend a club or something).
The producers of these movies are on record saying they are only bringing reflections of their experiences to play rather than deliberately campaigning. Isn't that the point of a producer? Bringing a view in that may be different?
If you don't like the movie for its storyline or characters that's fine. But if you are so sensitive about other's life views that they ruin your enjoyment of a movie that is fantasy then you are verging on reading way too much into shit.Plenty of movies I enjoyed watching that wouldn't fit with my personal view on life, but if they entertain then they have served their purpose.
As for Solo, watch it for what it is not for what offended you from another movie.
Well if the producers claim that then it must be right. I mean characters like Holdo and Rose are just a complete coincidence. SW was clearly crying out for a pink haired lesbian and a dumpy Asian chick. Not to mention a robot fighting for robot rights. Or pan-sexual Lando.
GL saw the Ewoks as the Viet Cong so it's not like there haven't been political undertones in SW films. The problem is when it is to the detriment of the films they make. Ray is a joke of a character. A ridiculous Mary Sue who is the result of Kathleen Kennedy's obsession with a strong female lead". TLJ was an abortion. Here's a novel idea. Make a fucking space opera first then insert your politics. Not the other way round.
But I guess it's your side Crucial and that's all people like you give a shit about. Even if the quality of these films falls off a cliff as a result.
Again with the 'people like you' and 'your side' rubbish.
Stop categorising people and trying to create 'sides' and much of this crap disappears.I get that experiences or slants you would bring to your work wouldn't include different sexual orientations but (apart from being a poorly written character) what on earth is wrong with having a 'dumpy Asian chick' (your words) in a movie? Is that how you would go about casting? Plenty of people look like her in the world I live in. Why not bring some relatable reality to cast? Even if it was deliberately done what is wrong with that? It is only reflecting the real world we live in.
-
@mn5 said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Really ? Have you not seen Rogue one?
Yeah, and I liked it. I thought it was the war movie matinee that Lucas didn't (but maybe should have) do.
I just thought that Solo had a bit more of the 'fun' that was in SW and ROTJ -
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@crucial said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
I don't think doing a Solo backstory was a completely stupid idea. From SW on there were always 4 main characters (2 more if you count C3PO and R2D2)
We have had Vader's backstory
Luke doesn't have a backstory other than what we got when he was born and where we picked up with him
Leia got the birth backstory but the gap in hers would be rather boring up to where she came in in R1
Han was a bit of a mystery, as was his relationship with Chewie. It was only ever alluded to in bits and pieces in the EU works so was fertile ground to fill in where he came from and how he met Chewie. No one really needed it but if wanted to make a separate movie in the SW universe it was a pretty obvious one to make.
As a movie it is a fun watch and probably one of the closest in feel to the originals.
Sadly it was made a scapegoat by those that decided movies couldn't offend their political sensibilities.
Or it was just because the previous SW film was utter shit and they wouldn't part with their hard earned to watch another one. That tends to happen when the filmmakers care more about making political statements than developing good characters and stories.
See, that's just your interpretation on the movie and that's fair enough, you can interpret things however you think.
All movies about conflict or war will convey some sort of position. The difference is that in the OT days the political undertones were simple. Good v Bad. It was easy then because despite domestic economic politics there were common 'bad guys'. WWII was still in memories or only a generation past, the Cold War was still going etc etc. Mostly there wasn't the collective focussing on day to day issues that the internet brought about.
Now we have people getting further and further apart on societal views as each 'side' gets defensive over challenges to their thoughts and we get the endless tedious name calling and labelling that groups individual thoughts or stances into easily targetable factions. Say you don't care about gay characters in a movie and suddenly you go from being someone who really doesn't give a shit to a card carrying 'social justice warrior' (as if you attend a club or something).
The producers of these movies are on record saying they are only bringing reflections of their experiences to play rather than deliberately campaigning. Isn't that the point of a producer? Bringing a view in that may be different?
If you don't like the movie for its storyline or characters that's fine. But if you are so sensitive about other's life views that they ruin your enjoyment of a movie that is fantasy then you are verging on reading way too much into shit.Plenty of movies I enjoyed watching that wouldn't fit with my personal view on life, but if they entertain then they have served their purpose.
As for Solo, watch it for what it is not for what offended you from another movie.
Well if the producers claim that then it must be right. I mean characters like Holdo and Rose are just a complete coincidence. SW was clearly crying out for a pink haired lesbian and a dumpy Asian chick. Not to mention a robot fighting for robot rights. Or pan-sexual Lando.
GL saw the Ewoks as the Viet Cong so it's not like there haven't been political undertones in SW films. The problem is when it is to the detriment of the films they make. Ray is a joke of a character. A ridiculous Mary Sue who is the result of Kathleen Kennedy's obsession with a strong female lead". TLJ was an abortion. Here's a novel idea. Make a fucking space opera first then insert your politics. Not the other way round.
But I guess it's your side Crucial and that's all people like you give a shit about. Even if the quality of these films falls off a cliff as a result.
Again with the 'people like you' and 'your side' rubbish.
Stop categorising people and trying to create 'sides' and much of this crap disappears.I get that experiences or slants you would bring to your work wouldn't include different sexual orientations but (apart from being a poorly written character) what on earth is wrong with having a 'dumpy Asian chick' (your words) in a movie? Is that how you would go about casting? Plenty of people look like her in the world I live in. Why not bring some relatable reality to cast? Even if it was deliberately done what is wrong with that? It is only reflecting the real world we live in.
You're not defending the films, you're defending the (very openly expressed) politics of those making the film. You wouldn't care less otherwise. I wouldn't defend the filmakers inserting their politics, even if I 100% agreed with them. It's fucking Star Wars not a university newspaper.
And news flash Crucial. This is SW, not the real world. It's a sci-fi movie, not the real world. Since a huge number of fans are probably fat, sweaty, white nerds, how about casting one of them as well? Isn't that reflecting the world in which we live?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
And news flash Crucial. This is SW, not the real world. It's a sci-fi movie, not the real world. Since a huge number of fans are probably fat, sweaty, white nerds, how about casting one of them as well? Isn't that reflecting the world in which we live?
Maybe because that demographic has already been covered?
-
@mooshld said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Star Wars VII ****contains spoilers****:
Or it was just because the previous SW film was utter shit and they wouldn't part with their hard earned to watch another one. That tends to happen when the filmmakers care more about making political statements than developing good characters and stories.
I didn't read this whole thread, and I am sure I am going to regret asking this. But what political statements were made?
None.
Well... some rather tiresome analogies of robots/slavery. But funnily enough, that is NOT what people are alluding to.
Some people seem to believe that the movies are pushing an agenda of brainwashing our children to start fucking toasters and fridges. Because of a couple of poor jokes in the movie, which were NOT saying that at all, and a throwaway gag by the (comedic) actor. Which again - was NOT seriously saying that at all.
But... despite having had this pointed out several times, minds do not change. So not really looking forward to the "copy-paste" responses.