Trevorrow out as 9's director

[WebLurker]

It's not really much of a pedestal. I'm not saying it's better than a bunch of great fantastic films.

Hmm, I think that you are, at least with the examples you provided, but that is subjective.

I hated The Force Awakens.

Fair enough.

It's just a shitty remake of Star Wars; it's badly written, and somehow it discovered a way to add in pacing problems the original never had.

TFA does echo ANH, however, that's what this series does; all the movies echo their counterparts of their respective trilogies. That's what Star Wars movies do; they remix and ripoff each other with borrowed plot ideas, homages, meta humor, parallels, and borrowed story structures. Why should we single TFA for doing what literally ever other movie in the franchise already did? However, I'm also not sure it qualifies as a remake; it has different characters with different motivations that push the story beyond the ANH framework that it starts out from.

As far as it being badly written, can't say I agree there. At any rate, it's no worse than the standards set by its predecessors in the series. No idea what kind of pacing problems you're taking about, so I can't comment on that. I never noticed any.

(Kind of ironic; the same argument could be made about Jurassic World; it too is more or less a remake of the original movie in its series, with new characters and a few differences in setup, but still has a lot of the broad strokes. While I love both, I guess that I think TFA managed to become more of its own thing; most of the characters have story arcs and there seems to be a different theme, where Jurassic World doesn't feel like it has anything different to say than repeating what the original said in a different context. I also think that the each movies' characters are the best parts of each. Mileage may vary.)

It's one big giant mess that's only made not completely unwatchable by the cast in it...although I've no wish to ever see it again.

While I don't agree with you on the movie's quality and find it more re-watchable than Jurassic World (although I find Jurassic World very re-watchable, so that may not be worth much), I think you're right that the characters, new and old, are the best part of TFA.

Being better than that 2015 Fantastic Four movie is a bar the last two Star Wars movies couldn't pass.

Never saw the movie, so I can't say for sure, but didn't F4 fail on practically every single level? I mean, it seems like even the critics who didn't like the Disney Star Wars movies were able to find some things they did right?

At least that movie has some really good moments, the new Star Wars movies don't even have that.

I will see that bet (links to videos when possible:

Force Awakens

- Escaping the Finalizer

- Escape on the Falcon

- The bridge

- Final lightsaber duel

Rogue One

- K-2SO (all)

- Jyn Erso and Saw Gerrrera

- Galen Erso's message/destruction of Jedah

- Jyn reuniting with her father

- Battle of Scarif

- Vader vs. Rebels (plus destruction of Scarif)

That said, his Fantastic Four movie is easily the weakest of his two films, with Chronicle being the better one. And Chronicle is miles better than any Star Wars movie that's been released in the last 18 years.

Never saw any of them, so I can't comment on that.

It's also a fucking boring uninteresting mess of a film. It's got some nice images just to have nice images, but they ain't good enough to make up for how bad of a movie it is.

Not sure how it's a mess. The plot made sense, although I will concede that some of the supporting characters were short-changed in development.

Also, you know what, Jurassic World has better shot composition, there is no shot in Rogue One as good as Bryce Howard around the T-Rex's leg like it's a Frank Frazetta painting; and that moment isn't forced like some many of Rogue One's vistas, it arrives there naturally.

Better shot compositions than that JW? The visual of the smashed Jedi statue on Jedah, the Death Star Blasting Jedah, and the Death Star on Scarif's horizon come to mind.

I made it pretty easily. I like some of there stuff, it's just not as good as Jurassic World.

Well, comedy and drama have different standards for what makes them "good."

It's ok. I watched it when it came out, it's not, haven't really had any urge to watch it in the last 22 or whatever years since I've last seen it. He's also maybe made two good movies in the years since Apollo 13, which isn't very good given how many he's made since then.

Whatever.

He's a fictional character in a movie called Michael Clayton.

Still never heard of it.

What's your point? He's not in the same league as a lot of people, but what does that have to do with what I said?

I didn't say Jurassic World is a perfect movie.

That is what you seemed to be saying.

[Za Waldo]

Hmm, I think that you are, at least with the examples you provided, but that is subjective.

Maybe you hold those film in some very high regard or something, and that's why you think such a thing, but I don't. I think Jurassic World is a pretty fun action movie, I think it has some interesting things to say about what actions movies have become

TFA does echo ANH, however, that's what this series does; all the movies echo their counterparts of their respective trilogies. That's what Star Wars movies do; they remix and ripoff each other with borrowed plot ideas, homages, meta humor, parallels, and borrowed story structures. Why should we single TFA for doing what literally ever other movie in the franchise already did? However, I'm also not sure it qualifies as a remake; it has different characters with different motivations that push the story beyond the ANH framework that it starts out from.

The kind word there would be OTHER things. Turns out I've little interest in watching Star Wars go up it's own ass. And maybe they could have done that well, but The Force Awakens is a bad bloated remake of the original. What's even the point of watching The Force Awakens when theres already a better tighter leaner version of it.

As far as it being badly written, can't say I agree there. At any rate, it's no worse than the standards set by its predecessors in the series. No idea what kind of pacing problems you're taking about, so I can't comment on that. I never noticed any.

(Kind of ironic; the same argument could be made about Jurassic World; it too is more or less a remake of the original movie in its series, with new characters and a few differences in setup, but still has a lot of the broad strokes. While I love both, I guess that I think TFA managed to become more of its own thing; most of the characters have story arcs and there seems to be a different theme, where Jurassic World doesn't feel like it has anything different to say than repeating what the original said in a different context. I also think that the each movies' characters are the best parts of each. Mileage may vary.)

Not really, Jurassic World is doing what it's doing as a commentary on how crappy action movies have become, how no matter the spectacle it's just not impressive anymore. It's big ending is the two big dinosaurs from the original movie, who end that movie fighting each other coming together to beat the monstrosity that is the new movies bullshit dinosaur. Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are also playing at two totally different games.

While I don't agree with you on the movie's quality and find it more re-watchable than Jurassic World (although I find Jurassic World very re-watchable, so that may not be worth much), I think you're right that the characters, new and old, are the best part of TFA.

[quote]
Never saw the movie, so I can't say for sure, but didn't F4 fail on practically every single level? I mean, it seems like even the critics who didn't like the Disney Star Wars movies were able to find some things they did right?[/quote

I liked when it was over. I liked the cast of The Force Awakens. I didn't like the movie at all, but I did enjoyed the cast and it gave me hope the sequel wouldn't be ****. I'd just watched Looper like a few days before TFA, and that gave be some hope something good would come out of this upcoming Star Wars movie...before I had no hope of this, as I hated Brick and The Brothers Bloom.

You know what's funny about Rogue One, I can see all the cool **** it's pulling from, and it makes it sucking suck all the more. Rogue One should be a very cool interesting movie, if you're ripping off Inglourious Basterds, Apocalypse Now, Casino Royals, Blue Velvet, Seven Samurai, Zatoichi, and getting the gun that does a bunch of Hong Kong gun movies as your gun guy...you could be able to put together something pretty cool. But they don't do anything. I'm not even sure why the hell Inglourious Basterds is the movie he's trying to ape, because he's not taking any lessons away from it. Gareth Edwards never tries to infuse R1 with an ounce of the tension of Basterds, (even while directly trying to copy the opening of that movie) and if he did try he failed so utterly I couldn't even tell he ever went for tension. He doesn't even take away the lesson that it's ok to be playful and do something weird like this



R1 is pulling from some weird ****, but it's so fucking boring, straitlaced, and by the numbers it doesn't even make sense. The whole first mission they go on is a Apocalypse Now detour with a Blue Velvet reference thrown in there, and that which whole section of the film isn't totally batshit bonkers is a testament to how boring Rogue One is.

Rogue One does some of its Saving Private Ryan scene well, but by that point, the end of the movie, I couldn't really give a ****.

I will see that bet (links to videos when possible:

Force Awakens

- Escaping the Finalizer

- Escape on the Falcon

- The bridge

- Final lightsaber duel

Rogue One

- K-2SO (all)

- Jyn Erso and Saw Gerrrera

- Galen Erso's message/destruction of Jedah

- Jyn reuniting with her father

- Battle of Scarif

- Vader vs. Rebels (plus destruction of Scarif)

I mean, I've seen both movies, I know what happens in them. So two things about the Vader hallway scene in Rogue One. First, I hate everything about how they stupidly linked the movie directly into the beginning of Star Wars. Second, the Doctor Doom hallway scene in Fantastic Four 2015 is better.

Not sure how it's a mess. The plot made sense, although I will concede that some of the supporting characters were short-changed in development.

It's a mess because it's hitting all the beats of Star Wars but it's doing it all wrong. It does weird things like take the Cantina scene and the does it twice in a row for some odd reason. The Force Awakens is also a longer movie than the one it's trying to recreate, but it somehow can't find the time to explain anything happening in it. Who's this new villain? How is our main character better than people trained in the Force despite (to our knowledge) never training in the Force? How did the remnants of the Empire secretly become so big again? How did they secretly build a weapon even bigger and more powerful than when they were in power? Why is the New Republic not doing anything about them? Why is the force opposing the remnants of the Empire this tiny little group? The real answers to some of these questions are simple, because they're remaking Star Wars and the dynamic needs to be like Star Wars logic be damned. And you know what, ok, but give me a fucking reason in the movie for it.

Better shot compositions than that JW? The visual of the smashed Jedi statue on Jedah, the Death Star Blasting Jedah, and the Death Star on Scarif's horizon come to mind.

Rogue One is a lot of One Perfect Shot bullshit.

Well, comedy and drama have different standards for what makes them "good."

So?

We aren't talking about a drama anyways.

Whatever.

He's a fairly boring work for hire director. Apollo 13 is just ok. It's above average, it's got some nice performance from what I remember, and it's cool how they shot it, (it's almost weird nothing else has done that) but it's not much else.

The most interesting thing he's probably done is that In the Heart of the Sea movie where he shoots some stuff like Leviathan. The 2012 documentary, not the '89 movie.

Still never heard of it.

Yeah, I know. I didn't think telling you it was a movie and not a real person would make it click for you.

That is what you seemed to be saying.

[WebLurker]

Maybe you hold those film in some very high regard or something, and that's why you think such a thing, but I don't. I think Jurassic World is a pretty fun action movie, I think it has some interesting things to say about what actions movies have become

Yeah?

The kind word there would be OTHER things. Turns out I've little interest in watching Star Wars go up it's own ass.

Maybe you're watching the wrong movie series, then?

And maybe they could have done that well, but The Force Awakens is a bad bloated remake of the original. What's even the point of watching The Force Awakens when theres already a better tighter leaner version of it.

Well, for starters, it's not the same movie. Its the first act of a new story. New characters I want to see where they end up.

Not really, Jurassic World is doing what it's doing as a commentary on how crappy action movies have become, how no matter the spectacle it's just not impressive anymore. It's big ending is the two big dinosaurs from the original movie, who end that movie fighting each other coming together to beat the monstrosity that is the new movies bullshit dinosaur. Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are also playing at two totally different games.

So, Jurassic World points out bad blockbuster movies by being that exact movie? (There is subjectivity here, but I find it kind of funny that you didn't like TFA since it was an "ANH remake, "when I think a case can be made that JW was far less unique to it's predecessor.)

I liked when it was over. I liked the cast of The Force Awakens. I didn't like the movie at all, but I did enjoyed the cast and it gave me hope the sequel wouldn't be ****. I'd just watched Looper like a few days before TFA, and that gave be some hope something good would come out of this upcoming Star Wars movie...before I had no hope of this, as I hated Brick and The Brothers Bloom.

Okay.

You know what's funny about Rogue One, I can see all the cool **** it's pulling from, and it makes it sucking suck all the more. Rogue One should be a very cool interesting movie, if you're ripping off Inglourious Basterds, Apocalypse Now, Casino Royals, Blue Velvet, Seven Samurai, Zatoichi, and getting the gun that does a bunch of Hong Kong gun movies as your gun guy...you could be able to put together something pretty cool. But they don't do anything. I'm not even sure why the hell Inglourious Basterds is the movie he's trying to ape, because he's not taking any lessons away from it. Gareth Edwards never tries to infuse R1 with an ounce of the tension of Basterds, (even while directly trying to copy the opening of that movie) and if he did try he failed so utterly I couldn't even tell he ever went for tension. He doesn't even take away the lesson that it's ok to be playful and do something weird like this



R1 is pulling from some weird ****, but it's so fucking boring, straitlaced, and by the numbers it doesn't even make sense. The whole first mission they go on is a Apocalypse Now detour with a Blue Velvet reference thrown in there, and that which whole section of the film isn't totally batshit bonkers is a testament to how boring Rogue One is.

I don't know what to say. I found the move to be anything but.

Rogue One does some of its Saving Private Ryan scene well, but by that point, the end of the movie, I couldn't really give a ****.

Fair enough.

I mean, I've seen both movies, I know what happens in them. So two things about the Vader hallway scene in Rogue One. First, I hate everything about how they stupidly linked the movie directly into the beginning of Star Wars.

That was point; R1 was an ANH prequel. The odds of it not leading right into ANH were pretty small. IMHO, it makes the movie a better fit into the series.

Second, the Doctor Doom hallway scene in Fantastic Four 2015 is better.

Color me skeptical.

It's a mess because it's hitting all the beats of Star Wars but it's doing it all wrong. It does weird things like take the Cantina scene and the does it twice in a row for some odd reason.

No, it didn't. When was that?

The Force Awakens is also a longer movie than the one it's trying to recreate, but it somehow can't find the time to explain anything happening in it.

So sure are you?

Who's this new villain?

If you're talking about the First Order, the title crawl explains; they're a political power that formed out of the remains of the Empire. If you mean Kylo Ren, we're told that he's an ex-Jedi who defected to the First Order and wants to become the next Darth Vader. If you mean Supreme Leader Snoke, he's the supreme leader of the First Order (and we don't need more than that for the sake of this specific movie).

How is our main character better than people trained in the Force despite (to our knowledge) never training in the Force?

It's been pretty well established that Force-sensitives can use at least some Force abilities untrained at newbie level (Phantom Menace, Ahsoka novel, Rebels short Property of Ezra Bridger, "Spark of Rebellion," "Droids in Distress," [Rebels season one episodes], A New Hope, et al). As a specific example, Luke taught himself how to use Force telekinesis (Heir to the Jedi novel). Rey is actually not far from baseline normal in the context of the franchise as a whole.

How did the remnants of the Empire secretly become so big again?

The movie doesn't say anything about them being secret like that (although the tie-ins do confirm that they're established in the Unknown Regions and that the New Republic/Resistance didn't know their full numbers).

How did they secretly build a weapon even bigger and more powerful than when they were in power?

Tech advances and, unlike the Empire, they didn't have to invent planet-killer tech from scratch (although I will concede that a planet killer using sun matter to generate quintessence to create a phantom energy beam that punches through sub-hyperspace is different from a big gun powered through Kyber crystals). Also bear in mind that unlike the Empire, there's no internal rebellion against the First Order, so no Operation Fracture or extremist Rebels trying to pull the curtain away.

Why is the New Republic not doing anything about them?

We're told that they're secretly funding the Resistance in the title crawl and by Gen. Hux. (The tie-ins do expand on the answer, but the movie did address it). Also bear in mind that the two sides weren't at war when the movie began.

[QUOTE=Za Waldo;3076985]Why is the force opposing the remnants of the Empire this tiny little group?

The real answers to some of these questions are simple, because they're remaking Star Wars and the dynamic needs to be like Star Wars logic be damned. And you know what, ok, but give me a fucking reason in the movie for it.

Why do people insist that TFA spoon-feed them every little scrap of info, esp. when most of the questions were answered in the movie?

Rogue One is a lot of One Perfect Shot bullshit.

Can't say I agree with you there.

He's a fairly boring work for hire director. Apollo 13 is just ok. It's above average, it's got some nice performance from what I remember, and it's cool how they shot it, (it's almost weird nothing else has done that) but it's not much else.

I think a case can be made that it's a better produced movie than most blockbusters, but you've seemed to make up your mind on the subject.

The most interesting thing he's probably done is that In the Heart of the Sea movie where he shoots some stuff like Leviathan. The 2012 documentary, not the '89 movie.

Didn't see those, so I can't comment.

Yeah, I know. I didn't think telling you it was a movie and not a real person would make it click for you.

Okay.

[Za Waldo]

Maybe you're watching the wrong movie series, then?

Maybe, if going up it's own ass is all they're going to do with it.

Well, for starters, it's not the same movie. Its the first act of a new story. New characters I want to see where they end up.

They're the same movie, doesn't matter if there's new characters or not. It's still a remake of Star Wars. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, it just happens to be a very bad sloppy remake of a very good movie. What's even the point of watching the shitty remake when the better version of it is right over there?

So, Jurassic World points out bad blockbuster movies by being that exact movie? (There is subjectivity here, but I find it kind of funny that you didn't like TFA since it was an "ANH remake, "when I think a case can be made that JW was far less unique to it's predecessor.)

I don't like The Force Awakens because it's a shitty copy of something that's good that doesn't try to do anything else but be a copy of that thing. On top of not doing anything good on it's own it's also not good at copying Star Wars. Jurassic World on the other hand is stylistically a whole different type of movie from Jurassic Park, it's the big dumb action movie version of Jurassic Park...it's also a commentary on these big blockbuster movies that Hollywood pumps out now. Jurassic Park and World are very similar movies, but there aims are totally different. That's isn't true with The Force Awakens, it's just a long bloated version of Star Wars that messes up the originals structure and can't explain things.

I don't know what to say. I found the move to be anything but.

Anything but what? Anything but boring? Anything but straitlaced? Anything but by the numbers? Go pull up scenes from the movies it's taking from on YouTube. Look at Frank Booth scenes from Blue Velvet, and stuff like the intro to that movie. Look at stuff from Apocalypse Now like the Do Long Bridge, when they meet Colonel Kurtz, his death, the mission brief, and when they arrive at Kurtz's compound. Watch the opening of Inglourious Basterds, the Huge Stiglitz flashback, the Operation Kino briefing, and that movies whole theatre end sequence. Even just go watch the opening of Casino Royale since Cassian's intro is trying to get the same thing aross. Watch what these scenes are doing, how they look, and then remember these are Rogue Ones inspirations, these are the things that movie is trying to do.

Gareth Edwards has also said Baraka is an influence on the film, which seems pretty crazy as I really see nothing of that in there at all. I'd expect a movie influenced by Baraka to not just be pretty looking, but to have far more interesting editing going on than anything on display in Rogue One. Baraka is probably one of the best looking movies ever made. It's also a non-narrative movie that seems to get everything it's saying or trying to say across through the image and the edit.

That was point; R1 was an ANH prequel. The odds of it not leading right into ANH were pretty small. IMHO, it makes the movie a better fit into the series.

No, the point was to show an event that happened before Star Wars. That it happened directly before the original movie and goes right into it was stupid pointless fan service. It doesn't make it a better fit either, if anything it makes it a weirder fit because now theirs a movie that brings those events up but never mentions they just happened. You'd think the opening title crawl that talks about the Rebels first win would mention it happened just moments ago. You'd think Leia would maybe be acting a bit different given how she was at that battle and saw the Death Star in use.

It also distracts from what the whole movie is about, which is following Jyn and her band of misfits as they get the Death Star plans. Instead of ending on the characters we've been following the whole movie, it ends with this weird cool bombastic fan service scene of Vader killing people because isn't it awesome we finally get to see Vader like totally unleashed.

No, it didn't. When was that?

When they meet Han Sole is the first time The Force Awakens does the Cantina Scene. The second time is when they go to the bar that looks like the Cantina. The Force Awakens takes the meeting of Han Sole at the Cantina, and Han & Greedo and does the new characters meeting Han, and Han running into those two gangs. That's The Force Awakens first Cantina scene, it doesn't look like the Cantina scene from Star Wars, but the same stuff happens there. It also takes the trash compactor monster and blows that up into a whole action sequence that even people that liked the movie seemed to hate. This would basically be the Cantina Scene stuff mixed with them getting pulled in by the Death Star after leaving Tatooine...it's got less going on but whatever. That's also the second time they've done that Death Star bit too, as the first time is when Llewyn Davis and Attack the Block team up to escape Bigger Death Star, and it'll happen a third time as everyone goes back at the end of the movie to save Rey like they saved Leia in Star Wars.

Later we get the Cantina scene again when they go to a place that looks like the Cantina. Besides looking like the Cantina scene, they're basically there for the same reason they went to the Cantina in Star Wars; only insisted of looking for a pilot they're looking from someone with information. So Cantina scene, happens twice in The Force Awakens, and both times they lead into a version of the bit where characters run around the Death Star.

See how this movie is a mess? It feels like a script written by different people but none of them checked to see if someone already did their take on a scene from the original movie. You don't need two versions of the Cantina scene, you don't need three different takes on Han and Luke running around the Death Star.

Also weird about these two Cantina scenes is they're also both takes on Luke and Obi-Wan talking at Kenobi's house. Han is The Force Awakens Obi-Wan, his little thing about it all being true is his version of Obi-Wan telling Luke about fighting in the Clone Wars with his father. In the next Cantina scene we met some old alien lady who also services that role and has an old Lightsaber in a box just like Obi-Wan does. And both of these come after we're introduced to a character that seems like he's the Obi-Wan character at the start of the movie on Not-Tatooine. That one little Obi-Wan scene didn't need to happen across two longer different scenes, pick the one you like most and go with that.

[Za Waldo]

So sure are you?

Yeah, I know it doesn't.

If you're talking about the First Order, the title crawl explains; they're a political power that formed out of the remains of the Empire. If you mean Kylo Ren, we're told that he's an ex-Jedi who defected to the First Order and wants to become the next Darth Vader. If you mean Supreme Leader Snoke, he's the supreme leader of the First Order (and we don't need more than that for the sake of this specific movie).

I'm talking about Snoke, a previously unknown character that somehow ended up running what's left of the Empire. I'd say that's a maybe on not needing to know who he is. You don't need to know everything about him, but it would been nice to know something about now this previously unknown character ended up running this organization we'd seen three whole movies of before.

It's been pretty well established that Force-sensitives can use at least some Force abilities untrained at newbie level (Phantom Menace, Ahsoka novel, Rebels short Property of Ezra Bridger, "Spark of Rebellion," "Droids in Distress," [Rebels season one episodes], A New Hope, et al). As a specific example, Luke taught himself how to use Force telekinesis (Heir to the Jedi novel). Rey is actually not far from baseline normal in the context of the franchise as a whole.

No. We see Luke training in Star Wars. You see Luke training in Star Wars, fail at the thing he's training at, and then accomplish it later. Star Wars is Luke training so he can do one thing at the end of the movie. It takes two movies of Luke training before we see him doing a thing in Return of the Jedi that we saw Obi-Wan do in Star Wars. Rey on the other hand has seemingly never been trained as far as we know (because mystery box) and she's already doing stuff like the Jedi Mind Trick, which you know, again, it takes three movies before Luke is shown doing this.

The movie doesn't say anything about them being secret like that (although the tie-ins do confirm that they're established in the Unknown Regions and that the New Republic/Resistance didn't know their full numbers).

They're on a giant secret unknown base.

Tech advances and, unlike the Empire, they didn't have to invent planet-killer tech from scratch (although I will concede that a planet killer using sun matter to generate quintessence to create a phantom energy beam that punches through sub-hyperspace is different from a big gun powered through Kyber crystals). Also bear in mind that unlike the Empire, there's no internal rebellion against the First Order, so no Operation Fracture or extremist Rebels trying to pull the curtain away.

Unlike the Empire the First Order doesn't have the backing of the Galatic Empire. Nothing about how the First Order is able to operate makes any sense at all. They're the shattered hiding remnants of the Empire yet they're more powerful than the Empire at the height of its power. Does that make any fucking sense?

We're told that they're secretly funding the Resistance in the title crawl and by Gen. Hux. (The tie-ins do expand on the answer, but the movie did address it). Also bear in mind that the two sides weren't at war when the movie began.

Nothing you said makes any sense at all. Yes, we are told the people running the show are funding the Resistance. But why? Why aren't they doing anything about it themselves? And I mean in the world of the movie. I understand why it's set up this way for the movie, it's so it's like Star Wars where the bad guys are still the big threat and the good guys are still the small band fighting a greater force. But that dynamic doesn't make any sense now because the Rebels won and the Empire lost. The villains should be the small band of fighters now trying to secretly beat the larger good guys. The movie never says why the bigger government won't get involved with fighting the people they were at war with directly. The problem with this whole thing is I've a feeling the people that created this situation don't know why it's like that in the movie other than that being the dynamic between the good guys and bad guys in the original movie. It's like you can feel how they haven't thought about how their universe works.

I'm sure the real world allusion is meant to be how Nazis went into hiding in places like Argentina after WWII. But the thing is, they went into hiding, they didn't conquer South America while the Allied Forces did nothing but create some little organization meant to fight the rest of WW2.

Why do people insist that TFA spoon-feed them every little scrap of info, esp. when most of the questions were answered in the movie?

No, that's bullshit. This isn't wanting to be spoon feed every little scrap of information, this is wanting to know why the big conflict of the movie looks the way it does within the movie. It's wanting to know why a character without any training can do stuff they shouldn't be able to do. If the movie won't to play mystery box with Ryn then they should have made the mystery more interesting. Her powers are tied up into this thing nobody gives a **** about, so just tell me movie so it at least makes scene right now why I'm seeing this character do the things she's doing.

The original Star Wars movie doesn't leave you in the dark about what the Empire is. There's a whole little scene were we learn what they are, why they've built the Death Star, how they'll control things, how they were working before, and other things. These kinds of exposition scenes are a thing you need when your movie doesn't take place in reality, or when there's been some huge shift in the status quo. From The Force Awakens I couldn't tell how either side really works, and I can't tell you why the Republic would even need the Resistance. Even the names don't tell you much, why would the winning side need a resistance? You're not resistancing, you won your resistance.

Can't say I agree with you there.

Can't say I'm surprised. I'm just not very impressed by the movies sterile symmetrical shots, especially when so many seem so forced. So it's symmetrical, so what? I'm I supposed to be impressed that this professional knows that symmetrical shots with something in the middle of frame look nice? But hey, opening scene. What do the Imperial guys park their spacecraft so far away from where they're going? Well, it's for One Perfect Shot bullshit. It's so we can have this shot of them walking towards the house with that mountain in the background and that black soil. But what's the point? I mean what's the point beyond looking good? Maybe it's meant to build tension, after all it's the movies version of the opening of Inglourious Basterds tension filled opening. But it's not building tension, it just feels like it's trying to show off a nice looking view, and then nothing after that helps build tension.n

I think a case can be made that it's a better produced movie than most blockbusters, but you've seemed to make up your mind on the subject.

Do you watch many movies? Because I'm finding this clinging to Apollo 13 to be fairly odd now. There were better put together big movies the year Apollo 13 came out. It's a slightly above average movie, and the most interesting thing about the movie is how they shot the space stuff. 1995 was full of better films than Apollo 13.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Sources are indicating that Trevorrow was fired. Of course, we don't have both sides upon which to judge this claim. However, insiders have asserted that Trevorrow's ego rubbed Kathleen Kennedy up the wrong way. Once you've done that, apparently, you are shown the door.

[Za Waldo]

Sources are indicating that Trevorrow was fired. Of course, we don't have both sides upon which to judge this claim. However, insiders have asserted that Trevorrow's ego rubbed Kathleen Kennedy up the wrong way. Once you've done that, apparently, you are shown the door.

It sounds like more of a Kathleen Kennedy ego problem as this keeps happening.

[WebLurker]

They're the same movie, doesn't matter if there's new characters or not. It's still a remake of Star Wars.

It's not the same movie. It may start in a similar place, but the new characters push it in new directions. Cases in point, Rey may seem like a second Luke, but she has different motivations, thus a different story arc. There's no analog for Finn in the original movie. The plot starts going off in a different direction about the point they meet Han. Heck, the final act has more in common with ROTJ than anything in ANH.

This is not a bad thing in and of itself, it just happens to be a very bad sloppy remake of a very good movie. What's even the point of watching the shitty remake when the better version of it is right over there?

Well, if you don't like the movie, there's no point, but TFA provides a different storytelling experience. That's the reason to watch it instead.

I don't like The Force Awakens because it's a shitty copy of something that's good that doesn't try to do anything else but be a copy of that thing. On top of not doing anything good on it's own it's also not good at copying Star Wars.

The parallels to ANH were a starting point. It is doing different stuff, specifically starting a new trilogy, telling the story of new characters and capping off the old trilogy. I'd also make the case that it understands how its own franchise works.

Jurassic World on the other hand is stylistically a whole different type of movie from Jurassic Park, it's the big dumb action movie version of Jurassic Park...it's also a commentary on these big blockbuster movies that Hollywood pumps out now. Jurassic Park and World are very similar movies, but there aims are totally different.

I will grant a different style of design (iPod vs. '90s tech). Not so sure about the aims (esp. given that the whole "blockbuster commentary" you so latch onto is not really that important to the movie; just a small piece of the whole, not the main theme).

That's isn't true with The Force Awakens, it's just a long bloated version of Star Wars that messes up the originals structure and can't explain things.

"Original structure"? Not sure I understand that. As far as TFA being "bloated," don't think so. Pretty much every scene advances the story or reveals information about the characters. That's good if a movie can manage that.

Anything but what? Anything but boring? Anything but straitlaced? Anything but by the numbers?

Yeah.

Go pull up scenes from the movies it's taking from on YouTube. Look at Frank Booth scenes from Blue Velvet, and stuff like the intro to that movie. Look at stuff from Apocalypse Now like the Do Long Bridge, when they meet Colonel Kurtz, his death, the mission brief, and when they arrive at Kurtz's compound. Watch the opening of Inglourious Basterds, the Huge Stiglitz flashback, the Operation Kino briefing, and that movies whole theatre end sequence. Even just go watch the opening of Casino Royale since Cassian's intro is trying to get the same thing aross. Watch what these scenes are doing, how they look, and then remember these are Rogue Ones inspirations, these are the things that movie is trying to do.

Gareth Edwards has also said Baraka is an influence on the film, which seems pretty crazy as I really see nothing of that in there at all. I'd expect a movie influenced by Baraka to not just be pretty looking, but to have far more interesting editing going on than anything on display in Rogue One. Baraka is probably one of the best looking movies ever made. It's also a non-narrative movie that seems to get everything it's saying or trying to say across through the image and the edit.

At the end of the day, Rogue One is supposed to be a Star Wars movie. Also, a lot of this is subjective. Plenty of people found the movie to work.

No, the point was to show an event that happened before Star Wars.

Uh, yeah? That's the point of all prequels. We knew that that was what R1 would be the moment it was announced.

That it happened directly before the original movie and goes right into it was stupid pointless fan service.

You lost me.

It doesn't make it a better fit either, if anything it makes it a weirder fit because now theirs a movie that brings those events up but never mentions they just happened. You'd think the opening title crawl that talks about the Rebels first win would mention it happened just moments ago.

They did. From the title crawl of ANH: "Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet." It fits like a glove.

You'd think Leia would maybe be acting a bit different given how she was at that battle and saw the Death Star in use.

Maybe, maybe not.

[WebLurker]

It also distracts from what the whole movie is about, which is following Jyn and her band of misfits as they get the Death Star plans. Instead of ending on the characters we've been following the whole movie, it ends with this weird cool bombastic fan service scene of Vader killing people because isn't it awesome we finally get to see Vader like totally unleashed.

I kind of agree to some extent; the novelizations ability to end on an epilogue about the lead characters was an improvement to me. However, the last scene of the movie is about the schematics that the Rogue One crew gave their lives to steal and what that means for the Galaxy. So, the Vader scene is not the last word on the movie; the last word on the movie is about the main plot.

When they meet Han Sole is the first time The Force Awakens does the Cantina Scene. The second time is when they go to the bar that looks like the Cantina. The Force Awakens takes the meeting of Han Sole at the Cantina, and Han & Greedo and does the new characters meeting Han, and Han running into those two gangs. That's The Force Awakens first Cantina scene, it doesn't look like the Cantina scene from Star Wars, but the same stuff happens there. It also takes the trash compactor monster and blows that up into a whole action sequence that even people that liked the movie seemed to hate. This would basically be the Cantina Scene stuff mixed with them getting pulled in by the Death Star after leaving Tatooine...it's got less going on but whatever. That's also the second time they've done that Death Star bit too, as the first time is when Llewyn Davis and Attack the Block team up to escape Bigger Death Star, and it'll happen a third time as everyone goes back at the end of the movie to save Rey like they saved Leia in Star Wars.

Later we get the Cantina scene again when they go to a place that looks like the Cantina. Besides looking like the Cantina scene, they're basically there for the same reason they went to the Cantina in Star Wars; only insisted of looking for a pilot they're looking from someone with information. So Cantina scene, happens twice in The Force Awakens, and both times they lead into a version of the bit where characters run around the Death Star.

That' not two cantina scenes. There are different points. For example, the Greedo scene is supposed to show why Han needs the job, which is a different point from the Death Gang scene, where the point is to show that he's not the man he once was (setting up his story arc for the movie; that he needs to stop running back to what he used to do). Never had a problem with the Rathtars and there's not much in common with the Death Star scenes.

See how this movie is a mess? It feels like a script written by different people but none of them checked to see if someone already did their take on a scene from the original movie. You don't need two versions of the Cantina scene, you don't need three different takes on Han and Luke running around the Death Star.

No, even if the scenes have superficial similarities, they're remixed in different contexts for a new story. More importantly, they support the new story being told.

Also weird about these two Cantina scenes is they're also both takes on Luke and Obi-Wan talking at Kenobi's house. Han is The Force Awakens Obi-Wan, his little thing about it all being true is his version of Obi-Wan telling Luke about fighting in the Clone Wars with his father. In the next Cantina scene we met some old alien lady who also services that role and has an old Lightsaber in a box just like Obi-Wan does. And both of these come after we're introduced to a character that seems like he's the Obi-Wan character at the start of the movie on Not-Tatooine. That one little Obi-Wan scene didn't need to happen across two longer different scenes, pick the one you like most and go with that.

Lor San Tekka is not an Obi-Wan-type character. As far as why both Han and Maz fulfill the role, I think it's because Han isn't a Force user, so Rey also needs to be shown things by someone who's experienced it. Also, Maz acts as an Obi-Wan fro Han. Despite being the mentor character for Rey, he has his own story arc too, unlike Obi-Wan in the original movie.

I'm talking about Snoke, a previously unknown character that somehow ended up running what's left of the Empire. I'd say that's a maybe on not needing to know who he is. You don't need to know everything about him, but it would been nice to know something about now this previously unknown character ended up running this organization we'd seen three whole movies of before.

Hmm. Not sure about that, but I'm not sure what else to say.

No. We see Luke training in Star Wars. You see Luke training in Star Wars, fail at the thing he's training at, and then accomplish it later. Star Wars is Luke training so he can do one thing at the end of the movie.

Maybe, but it's still one single lesson, at best.

It takes two movies of Luke training before we see him doing a thing in Return of the Jedi that we saw Obi-Wan do in Star Wars.

Some of which was self-taught (Heir to the Jedi, The Weapon of a Jedi), and his time with Yoda was pretty limited

Rey on the other hand has seemingly never been trained as far as we know (because mystery box)...

Probably true, based on the timeline.

...and she's already doing stuff like the Jedi Mind Trick, which you know, again, it takes three movies before Luke is shown doing this.

I also know that mind tricks are an early Padawan lesson (per Star Wars: Rebels), that untrained Force users who're just realizing what they can do, can perform Force abilities, like we see Rey do, and that many Force users have a Force skill that they can naturally perform (Ahsoka).

To break it down the Force stuff we know for a fact she used, Rey did a mind trick, which, as mentioned before, is not an advanced ability, nor is there any evidence that it can't be used untrained (the novelization also explains how she did it, so we do know the canonical answer to this question). (She also struggles with it too, for what it's worth). She also used telekinesis, which we know can be self-taught, per Heir to the Empire and can be performed without any formal training by a newbie (Rebels episode "Droids in Distress"). She also connects to the Force (when she turns the tide of the saber duel), which is something that is not only a first-lesson thing, since Luke was taught about that in ANH, it's also something Rey was already told how to do (by Maz on Takodana) (materials like the Forces of Destiny episode "Sands of Jakku" also suggest that she may have been getting Force prompts over the course of her life).

So, no, based on the evidence of what we know about the Force and the Jedi, Rey is not overpowered and is very much baseline normal for a Force user.

They're on a giant secret unknown base.

Within their own borders.

[WebLurker]

Unlike the Empire the First Order doesn't have the backing of the Galatic Empire. Nothing about how the First Order is able to operate makes any sense at all. They're the shattered hiding remnants of the Empire yet they're more powerful than the Empire at the height of its power. Does that make any fucking sense?

Yeah, they're not shattered. They've been building themselves into fighting force for decades. This isn't a band of Rebels, this is a small nation.

Nothing you said makes any sense at all. Yes, we are told the people running the show are funding the Resistance. But why? Why aren't they doing anything about it themselves? And I mean in the world of the movie.

You would like the novel Bloodline. Just saying. (And that is in the world of the movie, FIY).

I understand why it's set up this way for the movie, it's so it's like Star Wars where the bad guys are still the big threat and the good guys are still the small band fighting a greater force. But that dynamic doesn't make any sense now because the Rebels won and the Empire lost. The villains should be the small band of fighters now trying to secretly beat the larger good guys. The movie never says why the bigger government won't get involved with fighting the people they were at war with directly. The problem with this whole thing is I've a feeling the people that created this situation don't know why it's like that in the movie other than that being the dynamic between the good guys and bad guys in the original movie. It's like you can feel how they haven't thought about how their universe works.

I'm sure the real world allusion is meant to be how Nazis went into hiding in places like Argentina after WWII. But the thing is, they went into hiding, they didn't conquer South America while the Allied Forces did nothing but create some little organization meant to fight the rest of WW2.

In the movies, the First Order did conquer South America (or colonize it, depending on how many of their new worlds were already occupied).

No, that's bullshit. This isn't wanting to be spoon feed every little scrap of information, this is wanting to know why the big conflict of the movie looks the way it does within the movie.

I will concede that this's probably the thinnest part of the movie, but all the questions were answered. Whether you like the answers is another thing. (The tie-ins also fill in more gaps, so the franchise has covered all the bases in one form or another.)

It's wanting to know why a character without any training can do stuff they shouldn't be able to do. If the movie won't to play mystery box with Ryn then they should have made the mystery more interesting. Her powers are tied up into this thing nobody gives a **** about, so just tell me movie so it at least makes scene right now why I'm seeing this character do the things she's doing.

As explained above it does.

The original Star Wars movie doesn't leave you in the dark about what the Empire is. There's a whole little scene were we learn what they are, why they've built the Death Star, how they'll control things, how they were working before, and other things. These kinds of exposition scenes are a thing you need when your movie doesn't take place in reality, or when there's been some huge shift in the status quo. From The Force Awakens I couldn't tell how either side really works, and I can't tell you why the Republic would even need the Resistance. Even the names don't tell you much, why would the winning side need a resistance? You're not resistancing, you won your resistance.

The Resistance is running their own show.

Can't say I'm surprised. I'm just not very impressed by the movies sterile symmetrical shots, especially when so many seem so forced. So it's symmetrical, so what? I'm I supposed to be impressed that this professional knows that symmetrical shots with something in the middle of frame look nice? But hey, opening scene. What do the Imperial guys park their spacecraft so far away from where they're going? Well, it's for One Perfect Shot bullshit. It's so we can have this shot of them walking towards the house with that mountain in the background and that black soil. But what's the point? I mean what's the point beyond looking good? Maybe it's meant to build tension, after all it's the movies version of the opening of Inglourious Basterds tension filled opening. But it's not building tension, it just feels like it's trying to show off a nice looking view, and then nothing after that helps build tension.

I think you got it right there. (I read Catalyst before seeing the movie, so I don't have the same perspective as one going in cold turkey, but it worked from what I could see.)

Do you watch many movies?

Understatement.

Because I'm finding this clinging to Apollo 13 to be fairly odd now. There were better put together big movies the year Apollo 13 came out. It's a slightly above average movie, and the most interesting thing about the movie is how they shot the space stuff. 1995 was full of better films than Apollo 13.

Sure, there was Toy Story. Look, Apollo 13 was an example that came up. You want a different example, I can provide others.

[ChrisIII]

To be fair it's a bit unclear how big the First Order, or the Resistance, is. We only really see two Star Destroyers and Starkiller base, it's unclear if they govern any worlds. There's supposed to be an Imperial remnant somewhere that's at peace with the Republic but has it's been disarmed (although like with the Republic and the Resistance, it could be covertly supporting them)... but I don't recall anything about them in the movie.

I'm curious how they're going to eventually connect the early first Order seen in the "Aftermath"/Bloodlines to the one seen in the sequel trilogy. It seems to have been founded by Rae Sloane (A character with a lot of appearences in the new canon, including some of the comics). but by TFA it's clear Snoke is in charge. Did Snoke overthrow her? Is she still around/dead? For that matter, could she be Snoke? (Last one's a bit out there I admit)

[Za Waldo]

It's not the same movie. It may start in a similar place, but the new characters push it in new directions. Cases in point, Rey may seem like a second Luke, but she has different motivations, thus a different story arc. There's no analog for Finn in the original movie. The plot starts going off in a different direction about the point they meet Han. Heck, the final act has more in common with ROTJ than anything in ANH.

It's almost exactly the same movie. It's following the beats of the original movie, while also for whatever reason also reusing those beats multiple times for whatever reason. Rey is a second Luke, she's also a second Han, and a second Leia. Yeah, she has different motivations, which are the opposite motivations Luke has. I hope nobody hurt themselves coming up with that. Finn is also Luke, with some Han...as he's going to leave just like Han left before returning.

The ending is the ending of Star Wars mixed with Luke and Han running around the Death Star and happening upon Leia

Well, if you don't like the movie, there's no point, but TFA provides a different storytelling experience. That's the reason to watch it instead.

Well, it provides a worse experience. It's just the original movie with some stuff moved around and repeated. Names are changed, some stuff that should be there is dropped, some stuff made longer, but it's the same movie. You know, I watched that movie Oblivion a few weeks back now, first time I'd seen, one of the writers on it was the Toy Story 3 guy that did the original script for TFA. What I found interesting about that movie is it's also Star Wars, but it buries that under so much other different stuff that you could be forgiven for not realizing it is like Star Wars. This is a much more interesting way of drawing inspiration from Star War, as it doesn't feel like you're just rewatching Star Wars. It'd also be a better way for a Star Wars movie to do it given they're already working within the aesthetic of Star Wars.

The parallels to ANH were a starting point. It is doing different stuff, specifically starting a new trilogy, telling the story of new characters and capping off the old trilogy. I'd also make the case that it understands how its own franchise works.

They were also the middle point and the ending point.

You are aware that being the start of a trilogy would mean it's not doing something different from Star Wars?

It also doesn't cap off the old movies, Return of the Jedi did that. If anything this movie comes along and tells you nothing really changed after the end. The bad side feels like they're in the same place they were despite losing, the good side feels like they're in the same place they were despite winning, Luke is off alone, Han is in the same place (not actual location) he was when we first met him, and Leia is still working with the small band of good guy fighting the larger villainous force...even if that dynamic makes no sense at all now.

I will grant a different style of design (iPod vs. '90s tech). Not so sure about the aims (esp. given that the whole "blockbuster commentary" you so latch onto is not really that important to the movie; just a small piece of the whole, not the main theme).

The aims of Park and World are monumentally different. Park wants you to believe these dinosaurs are real living things, they're animals, not monsters. That is the goal of that movie. World is a big action ride.

The commentary on blockbusters no long having the wonder they once did anymore is the whole point of the movie. It's like how the whole point of Cabin in the Woods was to comment on horror movies; only unlike CitW, World is a good movie that understands the thing it's commenting on.

"Original structure"? Not sure I understand that. As far as TFA being "bloated," don't think so. Pretty much every scene advances the story or reveals information about the characters. That's good if a movie can manage that.

What's not to get? The structure of the movie, how the thing unfolds. The Force Awakens takes the structure of Star Wars and fucks it up...and not in some kind of interesting way, it just messes it up.

Yeah.

Well, you're wrong.

At the end of the day, Rogue One is supposed to be a Star Wars movie. Also, a lot of this is subjective. Plenty of people found the movie to work.

At the beginning of the day it was meant to be a Star Wars movie that wasn't like a Star Wars movie. No title crawl, they're original weren't going to be any Jedi, (and their aren't here, but you've also got this not-Jedi Jedi who's Jedi adjacent) and the music was meant to be unlike Star Wars. Your point is also pretty bullshit, as it could have still been like a Star Wars movie while also drawing on its inspirations for better; and because it's not particularly shot like the original Star Wars movies to begin with.

Uh, yeah? That's the point of all prequels. We knew that that was what R1 would be the moment it was announced.

Uh, I don't think you're following. You said the point of the movie was to link it directly into the beginning of Star Wars. Being a prequel has nothing to do with it going directly into the beginning of something. It still works perfectly fine as a prequel without it. As a story it works even better given how the movie is ending on characters the movie isn't even about.

You lost me.

How so? It's fan service. It's a thing that's only there because you know Vader and you know Leia and isn't it so fucking cool to watch Vader slicin' and forcin'? There's no other reason for that part of the movie then: Hey, remember Star Wars, remember the old things you like?

They did. From the title crawl of ANH: "Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet." It fits like a glove.

No they didn't. Nothing in what you just posted there tell you, me, or anyone else it had just happened. All that tells you is that it's a thing that happened. Now if it started with "Moments again" then you could say that, but there's nothing to indicate time. There's also nothing to tell you one of the main characters was fleeing that battle, which is kind of a huge thing to skip over. Before you didn't know how many hands that trained places with before getting to Leia, or how much time pasted between that battle and that information finding its way into Leia's hand. For all we knew between that battle and the opening of Star Wars something along a spy movie happened where someone handed that info off to Leia so she could use her diplomatic connections to safely get it to its destination.

Maybe, maybe not.

More likely maybe. The new context for the opening is now that she was fleeting the very battle

[Za Waldo]

I kind of agree to some extent; the novelizations ability to end on an epilogue about the lead characters was an improvement to me. However, the last scene of the movie is about the schematics that the Rogue One crew gave their lives to steal and what that means for the Galaxy. So, the Vader scene is not the last word on the movie; the last word on the movie is about the main plot.

So the scene is pointless. You already know the schematic made it to the Rebels because this is a prequel. You also already know the heroes know they got the schematics to the Rebels. Everything after the main characters are killed is stupid pointless fan service that has no point other that being fan service.

That' not two cantina scenes. There are different points. For example, the Greedo scene is supposed to show why Han needs the job, which is a different point from the Death Gang scene, where the point is to show that he's not the man he once was (setting up his story arc for the movie; that he needs to stop running back to what he used to do). Never had a problem with the Rathtars and there's not much in common with the Death Star scenes.

It's the Cantina Scene, not only is it the Cantina Scene, but it's showing you he's still getting into the same kind of trouble he was in when we first meet him in the Cantina. They're the same scene.

I'm really starting to see why you have zero problems with how much the two movies are alike, as you seemingly can't make any connection between what The Force Awakens is drawing from in the original movie. There are many things in common with the Rathtars bit in TFW and Luke and Han aboard the Death Star in Star Wars. The Rathtar bit is the trash compactor monster scene combined with them being chased by Stormtroopers aboard the Death Star. They come aboard Han's freighter the same way the Falcon comes aboard the Death Star, there's a monster on it like on the Death Star, they get chased around the place like they do on the Death Star, someone is saved from the monster by someone in another place operating a door like they do on Death Star. Again, the bad thing isn't that it's taking from the original movie, although as it is, that whole Rathtar sequence doesn't work, the bad thing is it's two of three when it comes to The Force Awakens doing that one bit from the original movie. The Force Awakens takes a nice little sequence from the middle of Star Wars, cuts it up, makes them longer, and then spreads it throughout the movie. Two of them aren't even that different from one another, and all three still have sneaking.

No, even if the scenes have superficial similarities, they're remixed in different contexts for a new story. More importantly, they support the new story being told.

They're the same scene. The same scene happens twice. First it happens as a remixed version of it, then you just get the the normal version of it. Its sloppy. You know now many times Star Wars did that Cantina Scene? Once. Because that's all you need. You don't remake Star Wars and bloat it out by doing the Cantina Scene then following it up by doing the Cantina Scene. There's no point to it.

Lor San Tekka is not an Obi-Wan-type character. As far as why both Han and Maz fulfill the role, I think it's because Han isn't a Force user, so Rey also needs to be shown things by someone who's experienced it. Also, Maz acts as an Obi-Wan fro Han. Despite being the mentor character for Rey, he has his own story arc too, unlike Obi-Wan in the original movie.

I didn't say he was, I said he looks like he is. He's a character that looks like he's going to be an Obi-Wan type doing what Leia does in Star Wars. She was trying to get a message to Obi-Wan on a desert planet, now someone on a desert planet that looks like Obi-Wan is trying to get a message to her.

They both fill that role because The Force Awakens is a sloppy fucking movie and some idiot put the same scene in twice.


[quote]
Hmm. Not sure about that, but I'm not sure what else to say.

Maybe, but it's still one single lesson, at best.

I'll take something over nothing at all.

Some of which was self-taught (Heir to the Jedi, The Weapon of a Jedi), and his time with Yoda was pretty limited

Nobody cares about the books. Especially the new books.



Probably true, based on the timeline.

I also know that mind tricks are an early Padawan lesson (per Star Wars: Rebels), that untrained Force users who're just realizing what they can do, can perform Force abilities, like we see Rey do, and that many Force users have a Force skill that they can naturally perform (Ahsoka).

Based on the movies this isn't the case. The Mind Trick is used as a signifier when we meet him in Return of the Jedi. that he's more powerful, now we're seeing him do something Obi-Wan could do. In the movies the Mind Trick isn't the thing he's first being taught, and it's not the beginnings stuff Yoda is teaching him.

To break it down the Force stuff we know for a fact she used, Rey did a mind trick, which, as mentioned before, is not an advanced ability, nor is there any evidence that it can't be used untrained (the novelization also explains how she did it, so we do know the canonical answer to this question). (She also struggles with it too, for what it's worth). She also used telekinesis, which we know can be self-taught, per Heir to the Empire and can be performed without any formal training by a newbie (Rebels episode "Droids in Distress"). She also connects to the Force (when she turns the tide of the saber duel), which is something that is not only a first-lesson thing, since Luke was taught about that in ANH, it's also something Rey was already told how to do (by Maz on Takodana) (materials like the Forces of Destiny episode "Sands of Jakku" also suggest that she may have been getting Force prompts over the course of her life).

Yes, a character that's seemingly never trained to use the Force "struggles" to do a thing we only see Luke do three movies into the original trilogy. She does something we watch Luke train under Yoda to do. She's resisted some in the Force who is trained in the Force, (and who we see in the movie doing things we've never seen done in the movies before) and turned things on them. And then she beats someone trained in using a Lightsaber on her first try at ever using one.

So, no, based on the evidence of what we know about the Force and the Jedi, Rey is not overpowered and is very much baseline normal for a Force user.

Based on the evidence it's the total opposite.

Within their own borders.

Why does the Empire have borders? When is this said? And why are there borders within shooting range of the Republic?

[Za Waldo]

Yeah, they're not shattered. They've been building themselves into fighting force for decades. This isn't a band of Rebels, this is a small nation.

Not now it seems. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the shattered remnants of the Empire and nothing about how they were allowed to grow after the war makes any sense at all.

You would like the novel Bloodline. Just saying. (And that is in the world of the movie, FIY).

I've really no interest in reading Star Wars tie-in books. Especially after pulling up the author's Wikipedia page and seeing she's a writer of young adult paranormal romance books.

It is in the world of the movie. But why is it like that? It doesn't make any sense why it's like that, and I'm guessing you couldn't say why it's like that either. I'm not even sure the people that wrote the movie know why it's like that within the world of the movie. I know why it's like that in reality, but nothing in the movie tells me the people making the movie worked out how they got there. It's just that way because that's the way it was in Star War in 1977.

Was there a reply to this:

I understand why it's set up this way for the movie, it's so it's like Star Wars where the bad guys are still the big threat and the good guys are still the small band fighting a greater force. But that dynamic doesn't make any sense now because the Rebels won and the Empire lost. The villains should be the small band of fighters now trying to secretly beat the larger good guys. The movie never says why the bigger government won't get involved with fighting the people they were at war with directly. The problem with this whole thing is I've a feeling the people that created this situation don't know why it's like that in the movie other than that being the dynamic between the good guys and bad guys in the original movie. It's like you can feel how they haven't thought about how their universe works.

Because in your post it looks like your reply.

In the movies, the First Order did conquer South America (or colonize it, depending on how many of their new worlds were already occupied).

Which is why it makes no sense that the Republic aren't doing anything about them. Because clearly the Empire never really fell, and if they didn't really fall than the Republic should still be fighting them. Nothing about them not doing anything directly makes any sense within the world of the movie. It's a stupid contrivance so the good bad dynamic stays the same as the original trilogy.

I will concede that this's probably the thinnest part of the movie, but all the questions were answered. Whether you like the answers is another thing. (The tie-ins also fill in more gaps, so the franchise has covered all the bases in one form or another.)

No questions were answered, they were so not answered that you can't even say why any of these things are like they are.

What talking about why a movie doesn't work, saying it's covered in some tie-in doesn't help the movie.

As explained above it does.

Your explanation was very bad. We're talking about the movies, and stuff shown in the movies, and you're talking about cartoons and books that kind of sound like they go against the movies.

The Resistance is running their own show.

I literally have no idea at all what that has to do with what it's a reply to. Why is the Resistance even a thing? What is the point of them within the world of the movie? Why is the much larger Republic not filling the roll of the Resistance? The Resistance would make more sense as some kind of government intelligence agencies, as a direct part of a larger body trying to uncover some shadow organization. But that's not what they are. They're this weird little independent group so the movie can still have the little underdog good guys fighting the larger Goliath bad guys...but that makes no sense given the Empire lost.

I think you got it right there. (I read Catalyst before seeing the movie, so I don't have the same perspective as one going in cold turkey, but it worked from what I could see.)

Only it doesn't build tension. There's not tension in the scene, and it doesn't feel like tension was what they were going for as much as looking pretty. The funny thing is it's ripping off a scene that's a masters class in how to build tension. Not only that, but you could build tension by showing the ship bearing down on them. You could use something like the wind hitting Galen that the ship kicks up as it lands to show dominance over him. Instead we've got a weird scene that looks like it was done to show off the view which makes you wonder why they'd park so far away.

Understatement.

I don't know what that's meant to mean in the context you're using it.

Sure, there was Toy Story. Look, Apollo 13 was an example that came up. You want a different example, I can provide others.

I'm pretty sure I've seen more Ron Howard movie, so you don't have to name another.

There was more than Toy Story. Toy Story isn't even the best of the better stuff.

[Za Waldo]

To be fair it's a bit unclear how big the First Order, or the Resistance, is. We only really see two Star Destroyers and Starkiller base, it's unclear if they govern any worlds. There's supposed to be an Imperial remnant somewhere that's at peace with the Republic but has it's been disarmed (although like with the Republic and the Resistance, it could be covertly supporting them)... but I don't recall anything about them in the movie.

I'm curious how they're going to eventually connect the early first Order seen in the "Aftermath"/Bloodlines to the one seen in the sequel trilogy. It seems to have been founded by Rae Sloane (A character with a lot of appearences in the new canon, including some of the comics). but by TFA it's clear Snoke is in charge. Did Snoke overthrow her? Is she still around/dead? For that matter, could she be Snoke? (Last one's a bit out there I admit)

They do seem to have control of some planet, they do build their army by taking babies like in the '90s movie Soldier.

My guess would be the movie people neither know or care about what the book and comics people are doing