Locked STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI v.2 (First Critics Reviews Are Here; George Lucas' Reaction)

[BVG]

My man this is make or brake times if this movie doesn't deliver on originality / story then we don't have a success with the new trilogy in my opinion. (don't care about money intake I had an argument earlier about success, freaking Transformers that last movie made bank it ain't a damn success in my book)

Liked Ep 7 but lacked original story, can't take another one like that so it's make or brake time the best Star Wars movie since the 80's or bust.

But I'm a hardcore fan of the originals and I'll see them all that's for sure, good thing I liked / vibed with the new lead.

Story, Characters, Emotion this are the 3 main things into making it a success I need all those realized.. then sprinkles some action / humor / etc for seasoning and we got a hit on our hands.

Ep 7 got the characters and emotion not to stellar levels but they got them.. and took a fail at the Story hope to be a tad redeem moving forward linked up with the next movie.

Are you a Star Wars fan ?

I am.

And that comes with the understanding that everything redlettermedia mentions in their prequel reviews was bang on.

In this case I better not see another yoda doing flips bullshit schtick. Big bad guys that look as frail as this fucker does should be so powerful they are beyond physical combat.

Beyond this, just technically speaking...cgi is not there yet to pull of great performances you get from actors. The lightening is always off slightly, and the animation never looks completely right.

This feels more like a cheap easy cop out, but the better choice would have been an actor I make up.

Fucking Hollywood.

 

[moreorless87]

Haha, yes I agree. Can only imagine the talk at LucasFilm/Disney when they're trying to bring Maul back and convincing themselves how it can be plausible. Shit, who knows, maybe Han isn't dead too, he'll come back with spider legs too

Han's back in Porg form.

 

[One MMA Fan]

I am.

And that comes with the understanding that everything redlettermedia mentions in their prequel reviews was bang on.

In this case I better not see another yoda doing flips bullshit schtick. Big bad guys that look as frail as this fucker does should be so powerful they are beyond physical combat.

Beyond this, just technically speaking...cgi is not there yet to pull of great performances you get from actors. The lightening is always off slightly, and the animation never looks completely right.

This feels more like a cheap easy cop out, but the better choice would have been an actor I make up.

Fucking Hollywood.

Agreed.

Also glad to see that you are a RedLetterMedia fan.. I always enjoyed your posts for a long time and to hear you say that is double great.

Red Letter Media and Mr. Plinkett all the way.

 

[BVG]

Agreed.

Also glad to see that you are a RedLetterMedia fan.. I always enjoyed your posts for a long time and to hear you say that is double great.

Red Letter Media and Mr. Plinkett all the way.

I stumbled across this nice little break down which explained to me why my eyes hate cgi still.



I think it's pretty damn accurate and now that I know WHY I hate CGI...the choice of using CGI for main roles becomes all that much more glaring a mistake.

 

[One MMA Fan]

I stumbled across this nice little break down which explained to me why my eyes hate cgi still.



I think it's pretty damn accurate and now that I know WHY I hate CGI...the choice of using CGI for main roles becomes all that much more glaring a mistake.

I love The Thing from 1982. (Campy feel to it but one of my most enjoyed re-watches at least once per year same thing I do with the first Tremors)

Even enjoyed some parts of the 2011 one because I liked the girl Mary Elizabeth Winstead and that big Swe non English speaker Lars.

Interesting video on the 2011 version and some nice insight why it was messed up. You will see what the creators said about it after.

Watch mid video for the CGI talk that kinda goes on till the end.. but I suggest you watch it all 10 min of good info.

 

[BVG]

I love The Thing from 1982. (Campy feel to it but one of my most enjoyed re-watches at least once per year same thing I do with the first Tremors)

Even enjoyed some parts of the 2011 one because I liked the girl Mary Elizabeth Winstead and that big Swe non English speaker Lars.

Interesting video on the 2011 version and some nice insight why it was messed up. You will see what the creators said about it after.

Watch mid video for the CGI talk that kinda goes on till the end.. but I suggest you watch it all 10 min of good info.

Oh I know the story of how studio execs with zero film experience make these rash bold decisions to use cgi.

I think cgi saves money as it's a quick way to have more flexibility into making stupid decisions based off of marketing or test audience feedback.

unfortunately that's a fucktard way of doing things. As this movie showcases, the 82 Thing didn't do so well originally as at the time, people were gravitating more towards the cuddle E.T alien and didn't take to well to the gore fest in The Thing.

of course things change as do opinions and suddenly everyone and their mother recognizes what Carpenter was doing and now "The Thing" catches up and makes revenue as a pop culture classic.

Blazing trails into how to properly do effects in movies.

Unfortunately this information has now been lost or cast aside for marketing and budget reasons to the much less favored by audiences yet flexible cgi effects.

It's a tradgic tale. And the only way out is down the road when the artists of cgi understand why the eye isn't fooled and starts to do things better.

But this still doesn't excuse as to why Disney thought it would be a great idea to use a cgi main baddy...when obviously the acting and performance of a REAL ACTOR would be much better. Nevermind they would belong in every scene and not "pop out" as most cgi people tend to do.

They are still not there yet.

It's a bad call Disney...a bad call.

 

[One MMA Fan]

Oh I know the story of how studio execs with zero film experience make these rash bold decisions to use cgi.

I think cgi saves money as it's a quick way to have more flexibility into making stupid decisions based off of marketing or test audience feedback.

unfortunately that's a fucktard way of doing things. As this movie showcases, the 82 Thing didn't do so well originally as at the time, people were gravitating more towards the cuddle E.T alien and didn't take to well to the gore fest in The Thing.

of course things change as do opinions and suddenly everyone and their mother recognizes what Carpenter was doing and now "The Thing" catches up and makes revenue as a pop culture classic.

Blazing trails into how to properly do effects in movies.

Unfortunately this information has now been lost or cast aside for marketing and budget reasons to the much less favored by audiences yet flexible cgi effects.

It's a tradgic tale. And the only way out is down the road when the artists of cgi understand why the eye isn't fooled and starts to do things better.

But this still doesn't excuse as to why Disney thought it would be a great idea to use a cgi main baddy...when obviously the acting and performance of a REAL ACTOR would be much better. Nevermind they would belong in every scene and not "pop out" as most cgi people tend to do.

They are still not there yet.

It's a bad call Disney...a bad call.

Agreed on all accounts.

You have seen this right ? I love when they talk about the effects in Tremors.

 

[moreorless87]

Honestly my view is that whilst yeah there funny guiys with a good deal of charisma Red Letter Media are nowhere near as smart as they think they are even if there smarter than the nanotalents that plague most youtube reviewers(to be fair technical stuff like that posted above is often much better done). There whole style to me just seems like a student who has come out of blockbuster 101 and is keen to push the very basic formula he's learnt as the ultimate secret of the universe.

There not necessarily wrong in many of there criticisms of the prequels but really your shooting fish in a barrel with those films and I don't think they really get to some of the fundamental issues that held them back, mostly the weakness of the characters arcs.

They love Abrams as he works a standard modern blockbuster formula very dependably but ultimately TFA for me showed pretty clearly this this does not lead to great cinema. I think they and many others similar to them got very defensive here exactly because they knew acknowledging that would mean acknowledge there limited ability as reviewers of cinema. Hence a lot of very dodgy dishonest stuff from the like sof them and Stuckman about Rogue One that bucked there beloved formula, showed some ambition and IMHO created cinema more on the level of the originals.

 

[KnightTemplar]

The "Light Saber Ring" sounds retarded. Reminds me way too much of Space Balls, and I know I won't be the only one to make that comparison.

 

[moreorless87]

 

[BVG]

Honestly my view is that whilst yeah there funny guiys with a good deal of charisma Red Letter Media are nowhere near as smart as they think they are even if there smarter than the nanotalents that plague most youtube reviewers(to be fair technical stuff like that posted above is often much better done). There whole style to me just seems like a student who has come out of blockbuster 101 and is keen to push the very basic formula he's learnt as the ultimate secret of the universe.

There not necessarily wrong in many of there criticisms of the prequels but really your shooting fish in a barrel with those films and I don't think they really get to some of the fundamental issues that held them back, mostly the weakness of the characters arcs.

They love Abrams as he works a standard modern blockbuster formula very dependably but ultimately TFA for me showed pretty clearly this this does not lead to great cinema. I think they and many others similar to them got very defensive here exactly because they knew acknowledging that would mean acknowledge there limited ability as reviewers of cinema. Hence a lot of very dodgy dishonest stuff from the like sof them and Stuckman about Rogue One that bucked there beloved formula, showed some ambition and IMHO created cinema more on the level of the originals.

Theirs always that one guy...

They did cover character story arcs...when they discussed characters...IN THE FIRST GOD DAMN PART.



You are fine to try to play the cool "I'll be the one guy who doesn't like something" kid...but I really don't care.

 

[One MMA Fan]

The "Light Saber Ring" sounds retarded. Reminds me way too much of Space Balls, and I know I won't be the only one to make that comparison.

Haha.. well maybe they don't use that.. but they need to have him with some new cool powers to awe us.

 

[One MMA Fan]

Stuckman about Rogue One

Stuckman is great but he let me down with the Rogue One analysis.. I got no problem that he didn't like it, no problem each has their own opinion but the way he handled those reviews / later analysis video was bellow his usual quality.

Did you see Stuckman's TFA analysis video ? now that is way better done.

Red Letter Media guys slammed Rogue One very harshly with some things I agree with others I don't. You kinda need to be in tune with their way of doing stuff the over cynical humor if you don't vibe with it the you will think they are just condescending assholes. They are not for all that's for sure I've been trying to get my buddy into them for some time but he refuses. He will probably like this post when he sees it.

Did any of you guys experiences this type of event with watching the new movies ?

So at first viewing of TFA I was so so about 7/10 then with more viewings I got to enjoy it a lot more got it ranked higher 8/10 even and I absolutely love the new girl lead.

With Rogue One's first viewing I was so pumped and enjoy it a lot more let say 8.5/10 but now almost a year over after repeated viewings I enjoy it a lot less then TFA maybe it's the story or lack of.. the characters all ending up dead I don't know it's not the same fun ride like I had the first time I'm more into 7/10 territory with it now.

Curios to see if others experiences any of the same with the movies ?

How will we look at this movies say 5 or 10 years down the line when we aren't so close to the event itself, history shows us plenty of movies that get forgotten and other ones rise to be true masterpieces like for example The Thing from the 80's.
Remember that crazy Avatar fever ? well how about now do you watch it at least 1 time a year and say it's a masterpiece ? I sure don't.

Also TFA is so close connected to this new Ep. 8 coming out if this one fails then it lowers EP. 7 with it also but it its real good then it will boost the first one too.

 

[One MMA Fan]

Yo get in here @Myrddin Wild look up.. we got a nice chat going.

PS: The first moment I saw Rey on the big screen I knew she was a right choice done by Lucas Film / Disney.. girl has this friendly charisma and is believable to some sort of inner strength... all I'm saying damn good move all in all screw the "girl power" crowd.

 

[moreorless87]

Theirs always that one guy...

They did cover character story arcs...when they discussed characters...IN THE FIRST GOD DAMN PART.



You are fine to try to play the cool "I'll be the one guy who doesn't like something" kid...but I really don't care.

There again though falling back to a rather basic level of analysis here looking at character archetypes moreso than actual character arcs. This does represent a clearer flaw in TPM as it does highlight its lack of a natural lead but actually Anakin in AOTC and ROTS does conform much more to a potentially successful archetype as a flawed hero. The problem I'd say is much more that the films get far too caught up in there politics to make his story the natural centre of events and ultimately his motivation for turning to the darkside ends up being fairly weak and not even much of a reflection of his character, basically he's pushed around by the plot rather than driving it.

TFA for me is a perfect reflection of the weakness of this analysis, on the face of it Rey and FInn seem like much more successful lead characters because they do conform to archetypes that leave more obvious potential for arcs. What we then see though is IMHO that this alone isn't enough to actually give a film depth as Abrams does not put much focus on developing the characters arcs instead opting for his typical action/nostalgia/humour rollercoaster ride. The characters end up again largely being thrown around by the plot rather than driving it and there big dramatic moments for me feel rather unsuccessful as a result.

Rogue One was actually much more successful here I'd say, it kept its nose to the ground far more not throwing out action/humour/nostalgia at the same ultra rapid pace. Instead most of what we see tends to naturally be driven by the characters who evolve far more believably across the film just as say they did in ESB or indeed even in ANH where Luke's introduction and scenes with Obi Wan are very down to earth and slow paced.

 

[BVG]

There again though falling back to a rather basic level of analysis here looking at character archetypes moreso than actual character arcs. This does represent a clearer flaw in TPM as it does highlight its lack of a natural lead but actually Anakin in AOTC and ROTS does conform much more to a potentially successful archetype as a flawed hero. The problem I'd say is much more that the films get far too caught up in there politics to make his story the natural centre of events and ultimately his motivation for turning to the darkside ends up being fairly weak and not even much of a reflection of his character, basically he's pushed around by the plot rather than driving it.

they say exactly this, but in a more entertaining way.

TFA for me is a perfect reflection of the weakness of this analysis, on the face of it Rey and FInn seem like much more successful lead characters because they do conform to archetypes that leave more obvious potential for arcs. What we then see though is IMHO that this alone isn't enough to actually give a film depth as Abrams does not put much focus on developing the characters arcs instead opting for his typical action/nostalgia/humour rollercoaster ride. The characters end up again largely being thrown around by the plot rather than driving it and there big dramatic moments for me feel rather unsuccessful as a result.

I don't care about their other reviews. But off the top of my head, they hated that the story borrowed so heavily from new hope.

Rogue One was actually much more successful here I'd say, it kept its nose to the ground far more not throwing out action/humour/nostalgia at the same ultra rapid pace. Instead most of what we see tends to naturally be driven by the characters who evolve far more believably across the film just as say they did in ESB or indeed even in ANH where Luke's introduction and sceen with Obi Wan are very down to earth and slow paced.

Rogue one was meh. Their review of rogue one was that it was meh. And while they don't break it down the way plinkett does in the prequel reviews I can't disagree with their issues with it.

But this conversation was about their plinkett break down as to everything wrong with the prequels. I'm not going to defend every damn review they've ever made. I'm just going repeat that everything they break down in those reviews of the prequels was accurate.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Yo get in here @Myrddin Wild look up.. we got a nice chat going.

PS: The first moment I saw Rey on the big screen I knew she was a right choice done by Lucas Film / Disney.. girl has this friendly charisma and is believable to some sort of inner strength... all I'm saying damn good move all in all screw the "girl power" crowd.

I really like the kid. But she was let down by the script and made into the ultimate Mary Sue, which robbed a lot of the scenes of tension.

 

[One MMA Fan]

I really like the kid. But she was let down by the script and made into the ultimate Mary Sue, which robbed a lot of the scenes of tension.

I never got that Sue stuff. Why..

What was the to much for you part of it ?

 

[KnightTemplar]

I never got that Sue stuff. Why ?

What is it to much for you ?

When Luke fought Vader for the first time in Empire, he got his ass handed to him. It wasn't even a close fight. That meant by the time of Return, we knew that Luke was facing an opponent who had already besmirched(and maimed)him before. Sure, we know Luke's the Good Guy and has to win somehow. But there is genuine tension going into the rematch. Vader is still a GOAT-level Big Bad.

Rey curb-stomped Kylo. She prison raped him. Yes, I know that Kylo was dealing with a major wound, blood loss and the emotional shock of killing his father. But the fact remains that Rey, with no training at all, stomped a mud-hole in his ass. OK, he wasn't fully trained; Snoke is supposed to complete his training. But so what? By the time the rematch happens, Rey will have gone through Jedi Camp with Luke fucking Skywalker as her personal trainer. On paper, the next fight should be even more of a mismatch. Rey should besmirch Kylo again, so where's the tension?

 

[moreorless87]

they say exactly this, but in a more entertaining way.

They focus much more heavily on the idea of archetypical characters and plots but don't tend to give very much focus to how much time a film actually spends to developing them and how skilfully it does so which I think is much more fundamental to its success.

I don't care about their other reviews. But off the top of my head, they hated that the story borrowed so heavily from new hope.

The issue goes far beyond originality for me though and I think plays into why TFA was seriously mediocre cinema. Its not just that the film takes elements of its plot from ANH but rather than it looks to piggyback on nostalgia to give depth to its events rather than actually building them up. Rey accepting the Force for example is an event with little meaning for the character beyond simply defeating Kylo and depends on playing on Luke's history. That's very different to Luke's story though were the force plays strongly into the way he's built up across the film, his desire to expand his horizons and to follow in his fathers footsteps.

You look at the other big climax for Rey as well in leaving Jakku and the wait for her family we've been told is so important and she doesn't even make a decision to do so, rather she's forced off the planet in another big nostalgia heavy action scene.

Rogue one was meh. Their review of rogue one was that it was meh. And while they don't break it down the way plinkett does in the prequel reviews I can't disagree with their issues with it.

But this conversation was about their plinkett break down as to everything wrong with the prequels. I'm not going to defend every damn review they've ever made. I'm just going repeat that everything they break down in those reviews of the prequels was accurate.

Again I think Rogue One was a vastly superior film to Abrams work but it was also not a film that conformed to the formula the likes of RLM and Stuckman have spent years pushing. As much as these reviewers might praise a film like ESB were it released today I suspect they would tear it down for not conforming to a rather simplistic view of cinema they hold.

I think you ended up with something inbetween ESB and early Ridley Scott, not perhaps as immediate as some modern blockbuster but more rewarding long term. Some of there commentary on it was downright dishonest, for example focusing on the nostalgia when actually this featured much less centrally than in TFA mostly being a reconstruction of a setting rather than throwing specific designs in your face(how many shots with the Falcon, X-wings, etc massively front and centre?). Equally there breakdown of that streetfight scene was pure nonsense highlighting a lack of character/humour that was actually very much present mere seconds afterwards.