I just had a revelation about the new film hate...

[Cavgunner 56]

10 minutes ago, Cavgunner said:

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Cavgunner
double post

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

1 hour ago, Cavgunner said:

Quite true, but if there are gaps in the character's development that's the storyteller's fault, not mine.  It is not our job to use our imagination to fill them in.  

Yes. Yes it is. Dear gods. What kind of attitude is that?  I don't want cinema to be the equivalent of a sippy cup.

We don't see how Luke went from broken boy to confident man in the time between Empire and Jedi either.  We use our imagination to fill in the gaps. That's how cinema engages our minds.  By making us think along.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Stan Fresh

[Cavgunner 56]

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Yes. Yes it is. Dear gods. What kind of attitude is that?  I don't want cinema to be the equivalent of a sippy cup.

We don't see how Luke went from broken boy to confident man in the time between Empire and Jedi either.  We use our imagination to fill in the gaps. That's how cinema engages our minds.  By making us think along.

No.  It's.  Not.

How many times do I have to say this.

If a character performs an action, it should be consistent with his/her pattern of behavior and prior development.  If that action is NOT consistent with past behavior, then you are **** right that it is the artist's job - not mine - to justify that behavior.  Proper, cohesive story development is ALL ABOUT THIS. 

"Imagination" occurs when I go and write a fanfic.  "Entertainment" occurs when the screenwriter uses his imagination to craft a story.  

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

...I can't even.

[Cavgunner 56]

Look man.  Movies are art.  I get it.  But we aren't interpreting Picassos at the Reina Sofia.  "Oh, I wonder what he was thinking here?"

These are movies.  And if the screenwriter/director can't justify, through whatever means direct or subtle, why a character is doing what they are doing, then that is.  not.  storytelling.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

13 minutes ago, Cavgunner said:

Look man.  Movies are art.  I get it.  But we aren't interpreting Picassos at the Reina Sofia.  "Oh, I wonder what he was thinking here?"

These are movies.  And if the screenwriter/director can't justify, through whatever means direct or subtle, why a character is doing what they are doing, then that is.  not.  storytelling.

I'm imagining you watching Lost in Translation and angrily demanding more explanations about character behaviors.

 

[Cavgunner 56]

2 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I'm imagining you watching Lost in Translation and angrily demanding more explanations about character behaviors.

 

Apples and oranges.

[Cavgunner 56]

That's a laugh, Donovan.  A real laugh.  You are really portraying TLJ as the thinking man's Star Wars?  Really?

Ok then, since you clearly think that I "just don't get it."

Explain to my why Poe, an experienced leader, disobeys direct orders twice and gets his whole fighter command killed, but at the end we're ok with it, because he grew as a character!

Explain to me why Finn and Rose went AWOL and got 80% of the remaining Resistance force killed, but at the end we're ok with it, because awwww Rose loves Finn!

Explain to me what purpose Holdo serves in this movie when better characters were available.

Explain to me who Snoke is.  (I'll give you a hint:  Nobody.  Rian Johnson doesn't care about your Snoke theory.)

Explain to me why Luke nearly committed murder.  Yes, he changed his mind.  But explain to me how what he saw in Kylo was worse than anything in Vader's heart.  And then explain to me why Luke was nearly ready to abandon Kylo but not Vader.

Because you're right.  I don't get it.

 

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

9 minutes ago, Cavgunner said:

Apples and oranges.

No, movie and movie.

[Cavgunner 56]

36 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

No, movie and movie.

Yeah.  And if I wanted to watch a good movie, I'd watch the one with Murray.*  Sorry, was watching a Shining recap.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Cavgunner

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

18 minutes ago, Cavgunner said:

Yeah.

So you agree, then. Excellent.

18 minutes ago, Cavgunner said:

 

  And if I wanted to watch a good movie, I'd watch the one with Nicholson.

Um...

[Nivrap 92]

TLJ is not the next Citizen Kane, and even if it were, I don't think "It's art" should be an excuse against criticisms of it's character inconsistencies. I had the same problem with TFA's handling of Han that I had with TLJ's handling of Luke.

I think it's incredibly pretentious to think that people's problems with the movie come from a lack of thought on their part.

[Cavgunner 56]

3 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

TLJ is not the next Citizen Kane, and even if it were, I don't think "It's art" should be an excuse against criticisms of it's character inconsistencies. I had the same problem with TFA's handling of Han that I had with TLJ's handling of Luke.

I think it's incredibly pretentious to think that people's problems with the movie come from a lack of thought on their part.

Thank you.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

14 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

TLJ is not the next Citizen Kane, and even if it were, I don't think "It's art" should be an excuse against criticisms of it's character inconsistencies. I had the same problem with TFA's handling of Han that I had with TLJ's handling of Luke.

But the characters aren't inconsistent - as has been demonstrated, time and again.

14 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

I think it's incredibly pretentious to think that people's problems with the movie come from a lack of thought on their part.

It's not pretentious to take people by their word:

Quote

"Imagination" occurs when I go and write a fanfic.  "Entertainment" occurs when the screenwriter uses his imagination to craft a story.  

Dude's actually saying he doesn't want to have his imagination engaged when watching a movie. That a movie is doing it wrong when the audience has to think along with it.

 

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

@Cavgunner, it is always up to the audience to “interpret” what a movie is telling us. We are always supposed to use our imaginations. That is what science fiction and fantasy is intended to do: engage our imaginations. There were more than enough clues as to what went on between the movies. I, and, apparently most others in this discussion, had no problem figuring out why Luke acted as he did in the movie. We didn’t need to have is spoon fed to us. In fact, many of us don’t want things spoon fed to us. That’s not why we go to see movies, not even SW movies.

[Cavgunner 56]

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

@Cavgunner, it is always up to the audience to “interpret” what a movie is telling us. We are always supposed to use our imaginations. That is what science fiction and fantasy is intended to do: engage our imaginations. There were more than enough clues as to what went on between the movies. I, and, apparently most others in this discussion, had no problem figuring out why Luke acted as he did in the movie. We didn’t need to have is spoon fed to us. In fact, many of us don’t want things spoon fed to us. That’s not why we go to see movies, not even SW movies.

Tramp, I appreciate that.  I agree with the notion of what you are saying, but I also disagree with your assessment of how the movie justified the actions that the characters took (not just Luke, mind you).

[Nivrap 92]

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

But the characters aren't inconsistent - as has been demonstrated, time and again.

You may have found the characterization consistent, and that's completely fine, but I and many other people think the movie didn't do a good enough job of getting Luke from point A (end of RotJ) to point B (TLJ). All we can do is offer our own opinions and input on the problem, but as long as people just write off our complaints as ignorant or uninformed, things aren't going to change.

In my opinion, nothing that occurred between the flashback in TLJ and the current story justifies Luke going into exile, cutting himself off from the Force, and believing that he can't save Ben. One of the biggest reasons I have trouble believing Luke would just give up is that Kylo pales in comparison to Vader, the guy who Luke did manage to redeem. Vader killed armies, Kylo killed Luke's students who didn't follow him. Vader was a literal avatar of the Force who was stronger than almost every other Force-user, Kylo is, by the movies' own admission, kind of a scrub when it comes to the Force.

It just seems like the only reason Luke can't solve the problem is because the new characters are supposed to do it, which is a thematic problem I have with the ST as a whole at the moment, not just Luke.

[Tramp Graphics 2,328]

5 minutes ago, Cavgunner said:

Tramp, I appreciate that.  I agree with the notion of what you are saying, but I also disagree with your assessment of how the movie justified the actions that the characters took (not just Luke, mind you).

Yes, they were. Poe’s actions at the beginning of the movie were perfectly in keeping with a hot shot pilot, which is exactly what TFA established him as. Luke’s actions were perfectly in keeping with what JJ Abrams has also established in TFA. Why did Luke disappear? He disappeared because he failed, he was broken. And his actions in the flashback are perfectly in keeping with his established personality as well. Luke has alway been impetuous, and reckless. He has always been one to act before thinking and let his emotions get the better of him. His father was the same way.  Yes, he has learned to temper that, but it has always been a struggle and always will be. The very fact that he stopped himself shows that it was only a momentary slip. But it was not completely out of character for him, given his history.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

8 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

 many other people think the movie didn't do a good enough job of getting Luke from point A (end of RotJ) to point B (TLJ)

I don't think you can claim that this is a problem for many people when the movie was a success with both audiences and critics.

9 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

as long as people just write off our complaints as ignorant or uninformed, things aren't going to change. 

No one here is doing that, though. This thread is specifically about only a certain subset of complaints.

13 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

One of the biggest reasons I have trouble believing Luke would just give up is that Kylo pales in comparison to Vader, the guy who Luke did manage to redeem.

That was then, this is now. Back then Luke was young and idealistic and hadn't suffered many significant defeats. This is an older Luke who, after all the heartache of fighting the Empire and rebuilding the Republic, saw his beloved nephew turn evil. It's not one thing, it's the last in a long, long litany of things. If he approached Ben the same way as Vader it would be awful; that would mean the last couple decades hadn't affected Luke at all. That would be completely boring.

 

[Nivrap 92]

10 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I don't think you can claim that this is a problem for many people when the movie was a success with both audiences and critics.

Unless we're going by the debunked "half of TLJ criticism was Russian trolls" study, I'd say audience reception is far from universally positive. TLJ criticism is so common that it's gained national attention for some reason, it's more significant than you're making it out to be.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

5 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

Unless we're going by the debunked "half of TLJ criticism was Russian trolls" study, I'd say audience reception is far from universally positive. TLJ criticism is so common that it's gained national attention for some reason, it's more significant than you're making it out to be.

The CinemaScore rating of A strongly suggests a near-universal positive response to the movie.

 

[2P51 33,446]

The 3/4 of a billion $ less in gross profits compared to TFA begs to differ.

[Stan Fresh 2,465]

14 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

The 3/4 of a billion $ less in gross profits compared to TFA begs to differ.

TLJ wasn't the first new Star Wars movie in a decade and a half.

[StriderZessei 948]

30 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

Unless we're going by the debunked "half of TLJ criticism was Russian trolls" study, I'd say audience reception is far from universally positive. TLJ criticism is so common that it's gained national attention for some reason, it's more significant than you're making it out to be.

The dissatisfied will always make more noise than the content.

This is just a more extreme example of this truth because of A: politicians attacking both SW and Hollywood as 'tools of the liberal media,' and B: it's Star Wars. 

[2P51 33,446]

8 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

TLJ wasn't the first new Star Wars movie in a decade and a half.

So Eiger slowed production of new content because he was happy with gross receipts and IP direction?  Doubt it.  A CEO doesn't do either when they think all the customers are happy.

Edited October 14, 2018 by 2P51