I'm possibly the only person under the age of 70 who doesn't even remotely enjoy the franchise. It's not like I haven't tried. My husband and I recently watched episodes I-VI to get ready for the new one (which we still haven't seen). I want to like Star Wars: I just find it boring. It's like a soap opera with a complicated political background and a lot of weird religious undertones. Also interesting to note, admitting you don't like Star Wars in some circles might be worse than admitting you're an atheist.
What I find so bizarre is that I really like Star Trek and routinely forgive it for its numerous plot holes, anachronisms, bad acting, and bad graphics. Why can't I do the same for Star Wars? Is there some social or psychological reason for liking one but not the other?
I also don't like Lord of the Rings or Dr. Who, and everyone seems to think that's really fucking bananas too, as if I'm a defective geek or some sort of poseur. I do enjoy Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and even the Chronicles of Narnia which is just a thinly-veiled Christian allegory (that I do my best to overlook).
Well if it's any consolation, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are the only two I actually like all that much. The rest are just kind of meh.
I'm generally more into books than the movie version, so the Lord Of The Rings didn't impress me that much, other than I think Jackson mostly got it right. Star Wars as I've mentioned elsewhere is basically a shoot em' up western with space warp and light sabers. I can take it or leave it.
I don't like Tarantino, personally. Inglorious Basterds was a ripoff of an older movie that in my opinion was better, and all the other movies haven't impressed me that much. The best thing he did was the trailer sword fight in Kill Bill, THAT was good. Otherwise meh.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 30, 2015, 06:54:54 PM
I also don't like Lord of the Rings
You are dead to me.
;]
The original 1977 movie, re-branded as A New Hope, but which I still simply call Star Wars, is the gold standard by which to evaluate these movies. None of the prequels live up to it. They can be ignored.
Generally, it needs to be considered from the context of the time. It was the first space movie to depict space scenes as dirty, old, unorganized, etc. There is a general lack of hokiness and melodrama in Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back (also Raiders of the Lost Ark) that had affected so many other space and adventure movies before that time; indeed, hoky ideas are turned on their head: "You go on without me." / "What kind of talk is that?" in Star Wars, or Indy gunning down the swordsman in Raiders. (Hokiness starts entering the Lucas world in Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, sadly. Both these movies disappointed me.).
It was the first space movie to portray fantasy and mysticism in a believable way without exposition.
These are movies that put you right into the middle of the action; they don't even have opening credits. You are immediately thrust into the middle of the world.
I saw Star Wars in the theater in 1977 as an 11-year-old, and was immediately hooked. I remember the magic of the opening scene, when the small ship passes by, pursued by a giant ship that just kept on going and going, and just when you thought it was about to pass, it kept going and going! I was young enough to be captivated by its magic, but old enough to be able to look at it with some degree of critical thought. And back then we had to wait 3 years for the next (not so bad for Empire because I didn't know they were making a new one until several months before its release, but following the cliffhanger of Empire, waiting 3 years to find out what happens was quite painful. Talk about anticipation!!)
I love all the Star Wars movies and TV shows, except the Christmas special. I love all the Star Trek movies and TV shows, except Enterprise. I'm glued to Doctor Who when the girls watch it, but I don't seek it out. I don't care for the other stuff mentioned.
The world needs nerds of all flavors.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 30, 2015, 06:54:54 PM
It's like a soap opera with a complicated political background and a lot of weird religious undertones
These are reasons I like Star Wars and DS9.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 30, 2015, 06:54:54 PMI want to like Star Wars: I just find it boring. It's like a soap opera with a complicated political background and a lot of weird religious undertones.
I can see that, though there enough different adaptions of it that there should be at least a couple hits. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
QuoteWhat I find so bizarre is that I really like Star Trek and routinely forgive it for its numerous plot holes, anachronisms, bad acting, and bad graphics. Why can't I do the same for Star Wars? Is there some social or psychological reason for liking one but not the other?
Probably. It could be a dislike of the fantasy elements or the hero's journey plotline.
QuoteI also don't like Lord of the Rings or Dr. Who
(https://heroineoftime.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/tumblr_meslec38wh1qgzqnco1_250.gif?w=600)
QuoteI do enjoy Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and even the Chronicles of Narnia which is just a thinly-veiled Christian allegory (that I do my best to overlook).
That almost makes up for that above. :)
Quote from: aitm on December 30, 2015, 07:11:22 PM
You are dead to me.
;]
It's ok. My husband feels the same way. He said I was crazy for liking Harry Potter and hating LotR. His argument? They're practically the same: both have dragons, elves, magic, adventure... Sorry, but that's like saying Tomb Raider and Resident Evil are the same thing because they both have strong female protagonists who walk around in skimpy, grungy clothes.
Quote from: Atheon on December 30, 2015, 07:58:17 PM
The original 1977 movie, re-branded as A New Hope, but which I still simply call Star Wars, is the gold standard by which to evaluate these movies. None of the prequels live up to it. They can be ignored.
I fell asleep during the Phantom Menace and wanted to rip Hayden Christensen's tongue out of his mouth in both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith for his awful acting. William Shatner, might, have been, a bad actor, but, I never, hated, him half so much, as Hayden Christensen. <-- or at least that's what William Shatner would say.
Quote from: Atheon on December 30, 2015, 07:58:17 PMGenerally, it needs to be considered from the context of the time.
I remember the magic of the opening scene, when the small ship passes by, pursued by a giant ship that just kept on going and going, and just when you thought it was about to pass, it kept going and going!
I definitely give Star Wars higher marks for graphics than anything Star Trek ever produced. The stuff Star Wars did even in the 1970s and early 1980s far surpasses anything the Trek ever did short of the rebooted films.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on December 30, 2015, 08:18:37 PM
I love all the Star Wars movies and TV shows, except the Christmas special. I love all the Star Trek movies and TV shows, except Enterprise.
These are reasons I like Star Wars and DS9.
I agree. Enterprise hurt to watch. Strangely enough, I actually liked DS9. I really enjoyed the serial format and at least the stuff with all the mysticism and prophets had a scientific explanation: they were just non-corporeal aliens that lived in a wormhole and existed somehow beyond temporal mechanics. Only irritating Major Kira made a big deal out of worshipping them and even after Captain Sisko went "full-Jesus" with being the emissary, I still liked how Jadzia got away with calling them what they were: wormhole aliens.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 30, 2015, 08:41:08 PMI fell asleep during the Phantom Menace and wanted to rip Hayden Christensen's tongue out of his mouth in both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith for his awful acting. William Shatner, might, have been, a bad actor, but, I never, hated, him half so much, as Hayden Christensen. <-- or at least that's what William Shatner would say.
Imo, much of the bad acting from Hayden Christensen was a direct result of bad directing and writing. The actors basically walk up to a green screen, do what they're told to do, and have to have a lot of faith that what they're doing gels in the finished product. With Anakin's horrible portrayal, apparently that's what either Lucas was shooting for or he didn't realize the mistake. Either one speaks ill of him.
I just bought Star Wars: The Complete Saga on Blu-Ray two hours ago so I can catch up before watching Episode VII. I like Star Wars but I've always been more of a Star Trek fan. I'll watch or read almost any sci-fi/fantasy. I enjoy Star Wars but I can name a lot more series and movies that I'm more into.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2015, 08:52:20 PM
Imo, much of the bad acting from Hayden Christensen was a direct result of bad directing and writing.
I don't know of anyone who could have pulled off that dialogue. I remember physically cringing in the theater.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 30, 2015, 06:54:54 PM
I'm possibly the only person under the age of 70 who doesn't even remotely enjoy the franchise. It's not like I haven't tried. My husband and I recently watched episodes I-VI to get ready for the new one (which we still haven't seen). I want to like Star Wars: I just find it boring.
Well, I'm 72, so I don't demographically fit into the under 70 qualifier, but I still feel young, and I love sci-fi, romantic comedy, and all of the Marvel comic book super heroes. But like you, I've never been a Star Wars fan. I remember the hype of the first movie, and everyone talking it up in the lunch room, but I don't get off on it either, and again, like you, I wish I did. You're just supposed to like it.
Now there are some good parts, the bar scenes are cool, and the robots offer comic relief, but it lacks the thought provoking aspects which seem so important in a lot of Sci-fi. I like alien entities that are so far advanced that they rival the Gods and live in societies that are wildly different from ours. These things frequently show up in Star Trek, well at least the older Star Trek movies and episodes, and they would often create interesting commentary about our own shortcomings. The crew of the Enterprise would escape tight situations often through clever thinking, but sometimes only by the good graces of the superior beings themselves. Sometimes they might even end up respecting each other.
Star Wars is just two mostly equally matched societies differing only on the basis of good and evil. You know that good will triumph because it's Hollywood, but you don't get a chance to understand the enemy's perspective or feel compassion for them or even understand them except on superficial levels. It ends up just being a high tech shootout in space. While there's plenty of action, it doesn't seem like great story telling to me. I never once wondered how in the world the heroes were ever going to get out of this or that pickle, and I don't find that very interesting. While the original Star Trek is dated now, it was ground breaking coming on the heels of enumerable over done Westerns hosted by all the networks. Why anyone would classify Star Trek as a "Western" is baffling to me. Star Wars is more like a Western to me. Although, neither of them were really Westerns at all. That comparison doesn't make sense to me.
But to each his own. I saw the last Star Wars for the same reason I don't miss a James Bond film, but I didn't want to comment on it until this thread came up. Those of us who aren't impressed need to band together and be our own support group, or we might end up going crazy at best, or instigating flame wars by blurting out ad hominems at the Star Wars fans at worst. :19:
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2015, 09:23:48 PMStar Wars is just two mostly equally matched societies differing only on the basis of good and evil.
The funny thing is, they're not evenly matched. In the original trilogy, the good side is the underdog. In the prequels, the evil side is the underdog until part of the way through the 3rd film. I get your point, though. It's rebel trooper vs stormtrooper, jedi vs sith, x-wing vs tie fighter.
QuoteYou know that good will triumph because it's Hollywood, but you don't get a chance to understand the enemy's perspective or feel compassion for them or even understand them except on superficial levels.
I know, right! I would kill a great many Bothans to watch a show from the Imperials' perspectives. We do get to be a fly on the wall in the Death Star and in the ATATs and hear a couple speeches, but we get almost nothing else from their perspective. If it's anything like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN_CP4SuoTU), I would love it to pieces!
QuoteIt ends up just being a high tech shootout in space. While there's plenty of action, it doesn't seem like great story telling to me. I never once wondered how in the world the heroes were ever going to get out of this or that pickle, and I don't find that very interesting.
I actually did wonder how they'd get out of it during the trash compactor scene, the cloud city visit from vader, and the attempted execution at jabba's palace. Granted, I was like 9 at the time.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 30, 2015, 06:54:54 PM
I'm possibly the only person under the age of 70 who doesn't even remotely enjoy the franchise. It's not like I haven't tried. My husband and I recently watched episodes I-VI to get ready for the new one (which we still haven't seen). I want to like Star Wars: I just find it boring. It's like a soap opera with a complicated political background and a lot of weird religious undertones. Also interesting to note, admitting you don't like Star Wars in some circles might be worse than admitting you're an atheist.
What I find so bizarre is that I really like Star Trek and routinely forgive it for its numerous plot holes, anachronisms, bad acting, and bad graphics. Why can't I do the same for Star Wars? Is there some social or psychological reason for liking one but not the other?
I also don't like Lord of the Rings or Dr. Who, and everyone seems to think that's really fucking bananas too, as if I'm a defective geek or some sort of poseur. I do enjoy Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and even the Chronicles of Narnia which is just a thinly-veiled Christian allegory (that I do my best to overlook).
I detect a pattern here ... you are better able to tolerate American acting and less able to tolerate British acting? ;-)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 30, 2015, 09:06:11 PM
I just bought Star Wars: The Complete Saga on Blu-Ray two hours ago so I can catch up before watching Episode VII. I like Star Wars but I've always been more of a Star Trek fan. I'll watch or read almost any sci-fi/fantasy. I enjoy Star Wars but I can name a lot more series and movies that I'm more into.
Good news: There's no need to watch the prequels to enjoy this movie (other than perhaps it explains who the Sith are).
<Adult mode on>
It's perfectly suitable to define Star Wars as a fantasy 'soap opera' with space action, considering it has nothing to do with science fiction or real 3d characters. It's a space opera to be exact. And a toy machine.
I think you either like it or not, it doesn't grow on you. If I didn't love it as little kid, highly likely, I would feel nothing or even get annoyed by the hype.
In my opnion, the basic reason is design of the original script. There has never been enough material to stretch it this far, even the first ones barely covered it. And then it was something new -I was a toddler then though- it was brilliant, it introduced a genre, but as OP said, the characters and relationships has always been pretty much like a soap opera ones. Other than that the action, spaceships, sabre light, space actions, galactic empire concept...geek heaven of the times and never died. But the story has no space to built new solid characters in it and the new generation of the movie tradition doesn't accept this any more. The bar has been raised a long time ago. The second batch was so dissapointing, while this helped a lot to the current one, it definitely killed a lot too.
<Adult mode off>
Having said all that...
(http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/99/30/f70a9ff20f1b603b4e83e1c430e8449e.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2015, 12:25:32 AM
I detect a pattern here ... you are better able to tolerate American acting and less able to tolerate British acting? ;-)
Of course. Why should we, as
Americans, be expected to accommodate some gosh darn foreigners in this great country?
/s
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2015, 12:25:32 AM
I detect a pattern here ... you are better able to tolerate American acting and less able to tolerate British acting? ;-)
Harry Potter and Narnia are British. :) Game of Thrones has an American author but most of the actors are British.
I think the American/British divide is pretty balanced. I'm trying to think of every scifi/fantasy series I like and the list is pretty extensive when you open it up to books.
Sorry, but I will never buy a movie ticket to subsidize the leading actor who is making $15 million/movie ( and neither a ticket to a sport events - baseball, football, basketball, hockey, whatever - with the leading superstar jock making $30 million a year). I'd rather spent my money in other ways...
You are not alone OP. I've never seen Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Any of them. I used to watch Star Trek on tv, but that's because we were poor as fuck and that's the only tv channel I had. I didn't mind it though. Star Trek is ok. I don't really care much for movies. I only go to the theatre if there is a movie with Chloe Moretz playing.
I don't really care for any sci-fi or superhero crap. Don't know what Game of Thrones is. Don't watch the Batman movies. Salem is an awesome show though. Witches are cool.
Never seen LotR -- no interest. Most boring book I ever read outside of assigned reading in high school. Oh, beautifully written, but when I say Tolkien is the Dickens of fantasy fiction, I can't say I mean it necessarily as a compliment.
As for Star Wars -- my interest ended the first frame of film that showed an Ewok. I pinpoint that as the moment it became explicitly a franchise to protect rather than a story to tell. The first two movies were great -- and I still like A New Hope better than Empire Strikes Back. It was a more honest movie: Lucas had no idea if he was making a movie that was going to be a hit or not, he was just trying to make a movie as best he could. After that, it was more a phenomenon than it was a story.
And for the record, my favorite Batman movie was the one with Adam West. :)
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2016, 04:59:20 PMAnd for the record, my favorite Batman movie was the one with Adam West. :)
What about the cinematic masterpiece that was Batman Forever
?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ebPoGE-9JM
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 08, 2016, 05:25:28 PM
What about the cinematic masterpiece that was Batman Forever?
Funny you should mention. I co-wrote a fan MSTing of a pre-production script (http://www.svamcentral.org/ewic/mstings/Batman-Forever.txt). :)
I think one's opinion of Star Wars depends a lot upon which movie you see first, and when you first see it. If you first see Episode IV in your formative years, you'll be hooked. It definitely hits all the Joseph Campbell checkboxes.
If you see Episode I first, well, god help you. It's basically CSPAN in space. Or is that Episode II? The first three all blur together in my mind...
Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 31, 2015, 03:25:36 AM
In my opnion, the basic reason is design of the original script. There has never been enough material to stretch it this far, even the first ones barely covered it.
Rebellious tomes of the past seem lacking because we are always evolving the rebellion. We're evolving pretty fast, exponentially, at this point. Yesterday's inspiration is literally "so yesterday."
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 31, 2015, 11:57:30 AM
Sorry, but I will never buy a movie ticket to subsidize the leading actor who is making $15 million/movie
I don't mind. I know they suffer for their art. It's also worth the ticket price to me. I also know by observing behind the scenes and interviews, the cast and crew were very protective of this story. The money just seems to be the payment they deserve for doing an excellent job. But then, I've only taken my family once, so they haven't raided my pocket book other than what's been on my shelves and my family's future 3D experience. I know I've pumped loads into Star Wars since 1977. I always defend that commercialized consumerism with, "It's for the rebel alliance."
::blank stare::
You think marketing made Star Wars what it is, then you're a freakin' hermit of at least my entire 41 ( and a half!) years of life.
Don't love it, or LotR, or the Matrix, or any other monumental Sci-Fi of the new millennium, that's fine. But please don't under-value the rest of the world for their admiration of anything related to the same, like Disney or Bad Robot to keep on thread. GODS goddammit.
Hayden Christopher's stellar career speaks directly to the role he played in episodes 2 and 3. Also Jake Lloyd the little shit twerp loser actor that played young Anakin Skywalker. The arc of their career best resembles that of a high angle mortar round.
As to the descriptive, insert the words "petulant" and "innocuous" wherever you like.
Quote from: stromboli on January 09, 2016, 12:56:48 AM
Hayden Christopher's stellar career speaks directly to the role he played in episodes 2 and 3. Also Jake Lloyd the little shit twerp loser actor that played young Anakin Skywalker. The arc of their career best resembles that of a high angle mortar round.
As to the descriptive, insert the words "petulant" and "innocuous" wherever you like.
1, 2, & 3 were total shadows of what they could have been, thanks entirely to Hayden Christensen and his younger self. But that discounts Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, just to name the big guns. Yes, I think the franchise had to be seized from George Lucas at this point, and who better than Disney that proved themselves with Pirates of the Caribbean? Disney went one (or ten) up when they signed on JJ Abrams.
As a fan of the franchise, as die hard as I am of my own beloved Boston Bruins hell or high water, I must say; "they" (Disney) could not have picked better than Abrams. Bad Robot! House, Lost, Alias, Super 8, Mission Impossible, Fringe, et all, this was the way to go hands down. To no disappointment.
Not a Star Wars fan, fine! Good for you. I am, though, and I hardly care if it was marketing instead of free will that put that Boba Fett sticker on my windshield. But don't pretend like you might have liked it 'if only', the best had it and you got what you got. Oh well!
I like Star Wars overall better than Star Trek, because as a long time sci-fi fan- dating back to the 50's- I know what is derivative and what isn't. To an extent both series have borrowed from previous sci fi (the Borg, for example, have a strong resemblance to Fred Saberhagen's Berskerkers) but Star Wars in terms of presentation and scale was a lot better imo that Star Trek. Star Trek got sued a couple of times for stealing stuff, which I know they did.
I haven't seen either of the last 2 Star Trek movies because they basically rewrote the series and either left out or altered some very big details. they also made Kirk into an immature, egotistical hotshot which would be ridiculous aboard an interstellar exploration ship.
The other problem is that, serving aboard a submarine- which if you think about it is as close to a sealed environment akin to a space ship as you can get- the military aspects as presented in Star Trek really bugged me. The second series was so centered on Q and the Holodeck that I just lost interest in it. The idea that a being like Q would bother wasting time aboard a mortal exploration ship I always thought was stupid, and the Holodeck? If I was the captain I'd rip the sucker out and eject it the first time it created an issue that affected the crew.
Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on January 09, 2016, 01:25:42 AM
1, 2, & 3 were total shadows of what they could have been, thanks entirely to Hayden Christensen and his younger self.
I'm one of those freaks who likes the prequels. and I saw New Hope about 20 times in the theater. On your point, Anakin's attitude and story perfectly explain to me his progression. The story wouldn't have worked if Anakin weren't a bulldog. I appreciate that the sentiment continues with Ben.
Hey, It's me in my homemade New Hope Vader suit with modified Don Post mask (2$ thrifting).
http://postimg.org/image/kuu412815/
Sorry, there was no time to make a codpiece. I took a vacation right before Halloween to make it. Yes, the belt lights up. No, the right tusk isn't darker.
EDIT: Man, I was a fat Sith. The costume looks a lot better on it's form in the corner.
Anybody else ever wonder why nearly all the older Disney movies had a distinct British"ness"?
Quote from: stromboli on January 09, 2016, 02:10:01 AM
The other problem is that, serving aboard a submarine- which if you think about it is as close to a sealed environment akin to a space ship as you can get- the military aspects as presented in Star Trek really bugged me. The second series was so centered on Q and the Holodeck that I just lost interest in it. The idea that a being like Q would bother wasting time aboard a mortal exploration ship I always thought was stupid, and the Holodeck? If I was the captain I'd rip the sucker out and eject it the first time it created an issue that affected the crew.
I really hated all the holodeck episodes in TNG,DS9, and VOY. In Voyager they didn't even make any sense, because the holodecks supposedly took up buttloads of energy but they had to ration food from the replicators because they didn't have enough energy? Like really, you can waste energy pretending to be a 19th century governess but you have to eat nasty roots you dug up on some planet because you can't spare the power? I get that it was supposed to be a story arc, but they were in the Delta quadrant and could essentially rewrite canon since none of the other well-known Alpha quadrant species were around. It had all this potential, but yeah...
Quote from: aitm on January 09, 2016, 01:38:34 PM
Anybody else ever wonder why nearly all the older Disney movies had a distinct British"ness"?
That's because before the internet, it was easier to paint the British ideology as something whimsical, before it was shown to the world how dull it is over here.
No, its the villainy ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgDNmJExVc
Winning advert 2015 ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7gR7EYjcP8
Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on January 09, 2016, 01:25:42 AM
Disney went one (or ten) up when they signed on JJ Abrams.
In fact, that it's an Abrams project is why I want to see it after deliberately avoiding the hell out of the three prequels. Well, that and it has the
real cast (saw A New Hope several times in the theater when I was 13-14, it is a spectacularly fun movie).
Quote from: TomFoolery on January 09, 2016, 01:54:10 PM
I really hated all the holodeck episodes in TNG,DS9, and VOY. In Voyager they didn't even make any sense, because the holodecks supposedly took up buttloads of energy but they had to ration food from the replicators because they didn't have enough energy? Like really, you can waste energy pretending to be a 19th century governess but you have to eat nasty roots you dug up on some planet because you can't spare the power?
The in-universe explanation is that the holodecks relied on a separate power source and for some reason, the power couldn't be transferred.
The out-universe explanation is that a writer really wanted a holodeck episode but at the same time still wanted to crew to be in dire straits with dwindling supplies.
In other words, a voodoo shark. There are many levels where that explanation falls flat. Like the fact that the holodeck is itself a replicator (just eat on the holodeck if you're that desperate for food), or the fact that while their own tech is incompatible with their own tech, yet they often happily integrate alien tech no problem.
There is a reason why Chuck Sonnenberg prefaced the original OVEG reviews with, "Welcome to the idiocy that is Voyager."
I watched the first Star Wars movie back in the 70's and haven't seen any of the others and have no desire to. It's boring tripe to me. I'm not into fantasy nor a lot of scifi . I prefer movies with a real plot about real people with real lives although I do have to admit to having watched the entire Jessica Jones series and the other one, Daredevil. That kind of stuff usually bores me to no end.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 10, 2016, 08:45:15 PM
I watched the first Star Wars movie back in the 70's and haven't seen any of the others and have no desire to. It's boring tripe to me. I'm not into fantasy nor a lot of scifi . I prefer movies with a real plot about real people with real lives although I do have to admit to having watched the entire Jessica Jones series and the other one, Daredevil. That kind of stuff usually bores me to no end.
See to me, real life kinda sucks. Even as a sheltered white cis male automatically co-opted into the patriarchy, my life is pretty dull and often times shitty. Making it interesting usually costs money I don't have.
9 times out of 10, stories about real life are of people who have it even worse than me. I really don't need to be reminded that most peoples lives are even shittier than mine. Id rather think about not being on this planet, even if that means I have to fight strangely dressed men with laser swords.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 10, 2016, 08:50:33 PM
Id rather think about not being on this planet, even if that means I have to fight strangely dressed men with laser swords.
Cloaking real world issues, like class struggle and manipulation, in fantasy is a good way to talk about problems without causing people to immediately run from the truth. Not only do people have a tendency to block out uncomfortable realities, people who use lies to their advantage try to hide truths. Fantasy about that whole duck and cover up is the best kind. Star Wars fills that spot for me.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 10, 2016, 08:45:15 PM
I watched the first Star Wars movie back in the 70's and haven't seen any of the others and have no desire to. It's boring tripe to me. I'm not into fantasy nor a lot of scifi . I prefer movies with a real plot about real people with real lives although I do have to admit to having watched the entire Jessica Jones series and the other one, Daredevil. That kind of stuff usually bores me to no end.
Oh, Star Wars is not science fiction, insofar as none of the elements really require a galactic setting. It could have as easily been told as a Western, a noir crime drama, a sea epic. And it was based off a Kurosawa film, the title of which eludes me. It's more correct to say Star Wars has science fictional elements, rather than that it is science fiction.
Quote from: Nonsensei on January 10, 2016, 08:50:33 PM
even if that means I have to fight strangely dressed men with laser swords.
yeah, one of those things that seems to get lost on the crowd. Got me a blaster and pretty boy over there is prancing about with an glorified electric sword and I am the one getting killed? WTF?
Quote from: trdsf on January 11, 2016, 02:00:38 PM
Oh, Star Wars is not science fiction, insofar as none of the elements really require a galactic setting. It could have as easily been told as a Western, a noir crime drama, a sea epic. And it was based off a Kurosawa film, the title of which eludes me.
The Hidden Fortress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress).
Villians in American movies very often have British accents. Esp. in animation. I just thought of the sharks in Finding Nemo. :lol:
I actually like the British accent. To me it sounds refined, dignified, and intelligent. But for real bad asses, it doesn't work well, except when it's the leader of a well thought out global takeover caper. A bad ass should have a low brow American accent, and say things like, "Shit Man. Ya don't know nutton, and I be putin' a cap in yer damn ass."
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 11, 2016, 02:37:00 PM
The Hidden Fortress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress).
That's the one, thank you.
I'm going to see this new one this weekend. I have calibrated my expectations properly.
I'm not huge on the British accent but I see the appeal of it. There are just much more beautiful accents to me (particularly Persian-Indian and some Middle Eastern [expecially Egyptian... hrrrrrrnnnn...]). And of course women with french or spanish accents... men it sounds weird on.
[spoiler]Snoke is none other than Kitster, Anakin's childhood friend! :)[/spoiler]
I don't like star wars either. Sorry warsies.
I liked it as a kid but going back and trying to watch it now is painful. I can't stomach it. sorry.
Quote from: doorknob on January 13, 2016, 02:14:45 PM
I don't like star wars either. Sorry warsies.
I liked it as a kid but going back and trying to watch it now is painful. I can't stomach it. sorry.
(http://s3.roosterteeth.com/images/3OfSpades5265c28ddcf0d.jpg)
Well, if I'm being honest, the only one I go out of my way to re-watch is "The Empire Strikes Back." It was always my favorite to begin with, but with the special edition releases it's also the only one that actually improved, I'd say. (My only real complaint is the change to Vader's meeting with the emperor in the Blu-ray version.)
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 30, 2015, 06:54:54 PM
I'm possibly the only person under the age of 70 who doesn't even remotely enjoy the franchise. It's not like I haven't tried. My husband and I recently watched episodes I-VI to get ready for the new one (which we still haven't seen). I want to like Star Wars: I just find it boring. It's like a soap opera with a complicated political background and a lot of weird religious undertones. Also interesting to note, admitting you don't like Star Wars in some circles might be worse than admitting you're an atheist.
What I find so bizarre is that I really like Star Trek and routinely forgive it for its numerous plot holes, anachronisms, bad acting, and bad graphics. Why can't I do the same for Star Wars? Is there some social or psychological reason for liking one but not the other?
I also don't like Lord of the Rings or Dr. Who, and everyone seems to think that's really fucking bananas too, as if I'm a defective geek or some sort of poseur. I do enjoy Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and even the Chronicles of Narnia which is just a thinly-veiled Christian allegory (that I do my best to overlook).
Actually, I hate all things Star Wars. Except the "action figures" (they weren't dolls, dammit!) from when I was a kid. Those were cool as hell.
But when I see technologically advanced people sword fighting...that's just stupid. I could wipe out the Jedi in an afternoon with Earth's advanced buckshot technology, no problem. And if I were a faceless guard who knew some jackass with a magic sword was going to block my laser fire with it I'd tape 3 guns together in a triangle and connect the triggers together and one-shot the bitch. You can't block a triangle with a line. The idea that those guards armed with future guns just line up to be killed by one dude with a sword...let's just say the suspension of disbelief is neither willful nor forthcoming for me.
Quote from: TomFoolery on January 09, 2016, 01:54:10 PM
I really hated all the holodeck episodes in TNG,DS9, and VOY. In Voyager they didn't even make any sense, because the holodecks supposedly took up buttloads of energy but they had to ration food from the replicators because they didn't have enough energy? Like really, you can waste energy pretending to be a 19th century governess but you have to eat nasty roots you dug up on some planet because you can't spare the power? I get that it was supposed to be a story arc, but they were in the Delta quadrant and could essentially rewrite canon since none of the other well-known Alpha quadrant species were around. It had all this potential, but yeah...
NOTHING about Voyager made sense from the very first episode. The writers didn't have a grasp of even the most basic principals of physics. Even things so basic as gravity confounded them.
Quote from: widdershins on January 13, 2016, 04:49:08 PM
But when I see technologically advanced people sword fighting...that's just stupid.
That may have been a comment on how society doesn't evolve despite technology evolving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V268Qk6-xsw
Quote from: widdershins on January 13, 2016, 04:54:36 PM
NOTHING about Voyager made sense from the very first episode. The writers didn't have a grasp of even the most basic principals of physics. Even things so basic as gravity confounded them.
You'd probably like SF Debris (http://sfdebris.com/) if you don't already watch it. Chuck has a whole series talking about Voyager, and his analysis of the episode "Threshold" (http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/v832.php) is especially hilarious.
Anybody else think "Sinestro" when Snoke appeared?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 13, 2016, 05:06:19 PM
You'd probably like SF Debris (http://sfdebris.com/) if you don't already watch it. Chuck has a whole series talking about Voyager, and his analysis of the episode "Threshold" (http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/v832.php) is especially hilarious.
Not really my thing. I don't mind someone pointing out all the ridiculous things in an episode, but the guy is just too wordy. I don't want to watch a half-hour play by play of a crappy Voyager episode when the major problems in an episode can be summed up in 3 minutes. And there are such egregious mistakes with Voyager "science", you don't really need to nit-pick.
For instance, they found a water planet and Janeway asks, "What holds it together?" I know this is probably news to all space travelers everywhere, but water, much like all other matter, does have "gravity", which is capable of holding things together. But, no, it was a machine in the center of the planet. But it was failing! Why was it failing? The idiots on the planet were using the water to generate power, separating light and heavy elements. The heavy elements were sinking to the middle, where they were crushing this machine. Let this be a lesson to you, kids. If you have a ton of bricks and a ton of feathers ALWAYS stack the feathers on the bottom because if you put the bricks on the bottom the damned thing weighs TWO TONS!
And there's one where they came across a planet which was destroyed, so they check it out. Janeway slips through a crack back in time to before it was destroyed, the crack caused by the destruction of the planet. She eventually realizes that the crew's attempt to rescue her is what destroys the planet, so she stops it. So the planet isn't destroyed. So she didn't go back in time. But since it's not destroyed, or warp capable, they just go on by. So you have this circle-jerk of events where every event has to occur before every other event can possibly happen. The only things in that episode that could have possibly occurred happened in the last 30 seconds of the episode.
See? 2 episodes, less than 5 minutes typing, all the major problems revealed.
Quote from: widdershins on January 13, 2016, 04:54:36 PM
NOTHING about Voyager made sense from the very first episode. The writers didn't have a grasp of even the most basic principals of physics. Even things so basic as gravity confounded them.
I wanted to like Voyager. I tried to like Voyager. And any captain who'd risk their ship for the sake of a cup of coffee is a captain I could follow.
But I had to give up the fight at "Beam the cheese to sickbay".
Quote from: trdsf on January 11, 2016, 08:14:27 PM
That's the one, thank you.
I'm going to see this new one this weekend. I have calibrated my expectations properly.
Big fan of Toshiro Mifune and Kurosawa. Seven Samurai, Ran and Throne Of Blood all rank high on my list of favorite films. The battle scenes in Ran, an overlong movie, just with the color and the sense of purpose of the combatants is worth the watch.
If ever anyone did Shakespeare proud with their interpretations, Kurosawa certainly did. Throne of Blood does Macbeth better than just about any western version. Same with Ran and King Lear. Kurosawa played homage to a master and did so masterfully. Some of the battle and death scenes in his movies transcend violence and become art, something Tarantino tried to do in his movies and frankly I think he mostly failed at.
That is the problem I have with Tarantino. I know where he gets his inspiration and I was a fan of Kurosawa long before Tarantino came along. There is so much "borrowed" in his movies and I know the sources, so it ruins it for me. Ironically it is his inclusion of anime in his work that makes it for a lot of people, but I can't get past the borrowing.
There is one death scene in one of Kurosawa's movies where a man is impaled with a sword. You don't see the sword because of the man's garments, his kimono covering the blood and the impaled sword. Just the body rolling down an embankment, with the impaled sword making the movements jerky and giving a corpse a weird sort of life is visual imagery you literally can't forget. Kurosawa was a genius, period.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 13, 2016, 05:06:19 PM
You'd probably like SF Debris (http://sfdebris.com/) if you don't already watch it. Chuck has a whole series talking about Voyager, and his analysis of the episode "Threshold" (http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/v832.php) is especially hilarious.
I love SF Debris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgIOdcBkkzg
Quote from: widdershins on January 13, 2016, 04:49:08 PMBut when I see technologically advanced people sword fighting...that's just stupid.
It's a common trope in science fiction (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceFiction/comments/1zh5wm/general_why_use_melee_weapons/), and different series have different ways of justifying it. In 40k, most enemies can close to melee without dying when shot at by standard imperial lasguns. Also, melee weapons are insanely powerful in that setting. In Dune, personal shields provide selective protection - blocking fast-moving projectiles but not relatively slow-moving melee weapons. In Star Wars, it seems stupid to prefer lightsaber over a blaster - but given that jedi have been shown to be adept at deflecting blaster fire (and not shabby at defeating locks) it's apparently an extremely useful weapon to wield.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 13, 2016, 05:10:33 PM
Anybody else think "Sinestro" when Snoke appeared?
I thought "Gollum".
Quote from: Atheon on January 14, 2016, 01:10:51 PM
I thought "Gollum".
I thought so as well. Andy Serkis played Snoke.
(http://i0.wp.com/bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/supreme-leader-snoke-darth-plagueis-and-theories-galore-765312.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 14, 2016, 12:32:42 PM
It's a common trope in science fiction (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceFiction/comments/1zh5wm/general_why_use_melee_weapons/), and different series have different ways of justifying it. In 40k, most enemies can close to melee without dying when shot at by standard imperial lasguns. Also, melee weapons are insanely powerful in that setting. In Dune, personal shields provide selective protection - blocking fast-moving projectiles but not relatively slow-moving melee weapons. In Star Wars, it seems stupid to prefer lightsaber over a blaster - but given that jedi have been shown to be adept at deflecting blaster fire (and not shabby at defeating locks) it's apparently an extremely useful weapon to wield.
Yeah, you have a point there. Still, I get a chuckle every time I think of Early Cuyler from Squidbillies going against a bunch of Jedi and kicking the shit out of them with his buck shot.
I actually can't stand most mainstream scifi. I hated Dune. Battlestar Gallactica and Babylon 5 were both pointless soap operas in space. And Firefly. I LOATHE Firefly entirely! I liked Star Trek TNG, but not DS9. I loved Stargate SG1, liked Atlantis all right and absolutely loved SG Universe. Something about being trapped in gigantic metal tech in space just turned me on...so to speak, and no, I was NOT touching myself just then!
Quote from: widdershins on January 14, 2016, 06:06:13 PM
I hated Dune.
Ditto.
Quote from: widdershins on January 14, 2016, 06:06:13 PMBattlestar Gallactica and Babylon 5 were both pointless soap operas in space.
Agreed.
Quote from: widdershins on January 14, 2016, 06:06:13 PMAnd Firefly. I LOATHE Firefly entirely!
Me too! I think there are so many parallels between Firefly and Star Wars that it's not really that crazy though. They have an almost entirely overlapping fanbase, and I don't belong to it.
Quote from: widdershins on January 14, 2016, 06:06:13 PMI liked Star Trek TNG, but not DS9.
I think this is the only point on which we disagree. TNG was
ok and certainly got better as seasons went on (or after Gene Roddenberry died), but I really liked DS9 from the get go.
Quote from: widdershins on January 14, 2016, 06:06:13 PMI loved Stargate SG1, liked Atlantis all right and absolutely loved SG Universe.
Also yes. :)
Hmmm, I found Firefly wonderful, but Star Wars uninteresting.
Quote from: SGOS on January 15, 2016, 07:03:52 AM
Hmmm, I found Firefly wonderful, but Star Wars uninteresting.
I watched the Firefly episodes after seeing "Serenity" and without any foreknowledge of the material. I liked the movie and the early episodes of the TV show, but they couldn't hold the overarching theme very long. Pity, it had potential. Or maybe that was all there was to say about those guys?
Quote from: widdershins on January 14, 2016, 06:06:13 PMI actually can't stand most mainstream scifi. I hated Dune. Battlestar Gallactica and Babylon 5 were both pointless soap operas in space. And Firefly. I LOATHE Firefly entirely! I liked Star Trek TNG, but not DS9. I loved Stargate SG1, liked Atlantis all right and absolutely loved SG Universe.
Firefly is bad but SG Universe is good?
(http://i.imgur.com/Dp1Knsj.gif)
Dune: No
BSG: No, in all forms
B5: No to the show and the boy band
FF: I tried
TNG: Yes, pompous silliness in the face of drama queens
Ds9:Yes, my favorite spacemall
SG: Maybe, if someone else is watching it
BR25: OMG!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV2I9TdUcwk
Dune: Plodding and tedious, with a few highlights. Not a fan.
BSG: Loved the pilot episode as a kid. TV show was boring; new series... couldn't get into it.
B5: Never got into it.
FF: LOVE IT!!!!
TNG: Ups and downs.
DS9: Too much religion for a ST show, but overall I enjoyed it
ST Voyager: I liked it. Lots didn't.
Star Trek movies: Like the even-numbered ones. Star Trek VI was the best.
Star Wars: From best to worst:
The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars
The Force Awakens
Return of the Jedi
Revenge of the Sith
Attack of the Clones
The Phantom Menace
Quote from: Atheon on January 15, 2016, 01:16:17 PM
DS9: Too much religion for a ST show, but overall I enjoyed it
It did have a lot of religion, but the basis of the religion was entirely scientific. There were some great episodes about how absurd religion really is, which I appreciated. Jadzia Dax refused to refer to them as the prophets and instead used the term "wormhole aliens" which was really more appropriate.
We have come a long way, but it is still BS ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm4I8B3bFUA
This is what my folks saw as children.
Quote from: Atheon on January 15, 2016, 01:16:17 PM
Dune: Plodding and tedious, with a few highlights. Not a fan.
Yeah, it really is tedious. Both the movie and the miniseries have quite a lot of dead air, and the overall length is more than most viewers can tolerate. But there's a hell of a payoff towards the end.
I saw the miniseries late one night and I loved it. It's hard to describe exactly what the appeal was. It's an almost Shakespearean feud, a hero's journey, and a final clash of philosophies just as much as a clash of arms. It's all been done before, but not quite in that particular way, which focuses more on religion and ecology and colonialism than your average scifi. I really appreciated its unique style.
Dune: Liked it a lot.
BSG: I loved it initially (especially the New Caprica storyline and the Razor special), but my feelings soured towards the end. I liked its bleak setting, but I think it got too bleak for too long. And I really hated its ending.
Caprica: I didn't like it as much a BSG but I think it was okay.
B5: My favorite show for a good long while. Seasons 3&4 ftw. Favorite episode: Severed Dreams.
FF: Firefly-level fanaticism.
TNG: Liked it a lot. Especially Best of Both Worlds.
DS9: Liked it more than TNG. Dominion war arc ftw. Favorite episode: In the Pale Moonlight
ST Voyager: Mixed feelings. I feel like it had a lot of wasted potential and dumb writing. It had its moments, but it also had some real stinkers. I really hated its ending.
Farscape: Loved it.
Stargate Atlantis > Stargate SG1 > Stargate Universe (aka poor man's BSG).
Star Trek movies: Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country. I liked and disliked a lot about the only TNG movie - First Contact. The rest of 'em don't exist as far as I'm concerned.
All Star Wars films: From best to worst:
The Empire Strikes Back
A New Hope
The Force Awakens
Return of the Jedi
It seems like a lot of people on here have enjoyed TV scifi during the last quarter century...
Has anyone been watching The Expanse on SyFy?
The Expanse! Worthy SciFi/SyFy. How about HBOs The Leftovers, since we're there. Exceptional TV.
http://www.hbo.com/the-leftovers (http://www.hbo.com/the-leftovers)
Well, I went and saw the new Star Wars movie on Sunday -- first time I've gone for one since Return of the Jedi. I have to say that in the main, I'm pleased with it -- it had a lot of the sense of fun the original had, and Abrams clearly has studied both the 1977 Star Wars (I thought I saw a lot of shots directly lifted), and Joseph Campbell.
It's still not strictly speaking science fiction, but it's a lot of fun.
Quote from: TomFoolery on January 14, 2016, 06:12:05 PM
I think this is the only point on which we disagree. TNG was ok and certainly got better as seasons went on (or after Gene Roddenberry died), but I really liked DS9 from the get go.
I didn't hate DS9 so much as I wasn't really into it. It got too deep into the politics and personal life for me and not enough into the amazing thing outside the window we had never seen before.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 15, 2016, 09:32:15 AM
Firefly is bad but SG Universe is good?
(http://i.imgur.com/Dp1Knsj.gif)
Personal preferences, I guess. As I pointed out, I don't like the mainstream stuff so much.
I tried watching Firefly a couple of times. To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen an entire episode. What utterly killed it for me is the last time I tried watching it one of the female characters used a term something along the lines of "powerful hankerin'" and that was all I could take. I don't want my future people to be from eighteen-fifty-suck. I have a HUGE problem with sci-fi which mixes future and past. It's the essence of why I hate Star Wars. I don't want to see futuristic people with traits which existed in the long past and no longer do. I can watch the occasional Western. I kind of liked McLintock. But I don't want to see that Western set on a space ship (unless it's Cowboys vs Aliens, which at least has a reason for it).
Now, maybe she time-traveled from Sucksville to a spaceship in the future, which would be a fair plot point. But I saw space ship, I one of the occupants of said space ship speaking ancient Shitkicker, I said "Not for me" and changed it.
Cowboys Vs Aliens was an interesting self parody ;-)
The perennial GOOD VERSUS EVIL can get boring after a while...
Quote from: Baruch on January 20, 2016, 07:37:55 AM
Cowboys Vs Aliens was an interesting self parody ;-)
Just a contrived movie promoted by Big Riverboat.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 20, 2016, 07:52:26 AM
The perennial GOOD VERSUS EVIL can get boring after a while...
Game of Thrones is pretty good for that. There are a couple complete monsters, but most people are just trying to protect themselves and their power, which inevitably leads to conflict. The Wildlings and the Watch are a pretty good example of gray-on-gray conflict, imo.
Also, Firefly is interesting in that the misfit band of heroes has some pretty shady dealings. In some episodes, they could just as easily be portrayed as villains as heroes.
Babylon 5 has some pretty clear-cut conflicts, but quite a few conflicts and characters are pretty grey. Londo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7n4Gg-_ac) in particular is straddles the line between good and evil.
And Han was a smuggler, working for a very shady character.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 20, 2016, 12:40:36 PM
And Han was a smuggler, working for a very shady character.
And he also fired first. It's a shame his character got so whitewashed. He had a nice character arc from scoundrel to hero.
I'm a little late to the party, but episode 1-3 were horrible for me. 4-6 were great though for me.
To each his own though. If you don't like starwars, it's fine. There is plenty of things I dislike that everyone turns to look at me like I have 3 heads. Like when I tell people I don't like Nirvana or The Beatles, they look like they want to smack me across the face.
BTW, I was super skeptical about this new one, The Force Awakens.... I was worried that they would rely too much on nostalgia and whatnot and everyone was over-hyping it. But it was absolutely great... and this is coming from someone who usually is disappointed from movies.
The problem with 1-3 for me was we knew where they were going, we knew how things turned out. We sat through them to get the back story we really didn't need. I was impatient for 3 to end.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 20, 2016, 12:13:18 PM
Babylon 5 has some pretty clear-cut conflicts, but quite a few conflicts and characters are pretty grey. Londo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7n4Gg-_ac) in particular is straddles the line between good and evil.
I've often said the real story that B5 was trying to tell were the intersecting arcs of Londo and G'Kar. Despite all the changes (physical and emotional) everyone else went through, these two were the ones that changed the most.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 20, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
I was impatient for 3 to end.
The last part of 3 the weak point in the galaxy. I hope it gets an update. At least it has a fierce battle.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 20, 2016, 01:41:02 PMThe problem with 1-3 for me was we knew where they were going, we knew how things turned out.
That's the key problem with prequels. There's no surprise because we already know how they'll turn out. Offhand, I don't recall many that were actually very good. X-Men First Class, I suppose. That one at least had a bunch of characters that weren't in the other X-Men movies to provide some novelty and surprise.
Prequels do badly for another reason as well. Prequels get made because there's an established franchise (which may have already hit its high water mark) with a need for new content but the writers are unwilling or unable to do a sequel. Maybe the main character dies. Maybe the conflict was wrapped up just a tad too tidily. So what do you do? Prequels! The snag is that the setting/characters are less advanced - future developments haven't happened yet, the technology is more primitive, and the characters are less developed. That badass you liked from the first film? Pre-badass. That cool starship outfitted with the latest plasma weapons? Those don't exist yet. Basically, you have to sell the audience a world where most of the cool stuff that they liked is gone. It's so hard to do prequels well, it's no wonder they tend to be bad.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 07, 2016, 12:59:50 AM
That one at least had a bunch of characters that weren't in the other X-Men movies to provide some novelty and surprise.
Sounds like SWEP1.
Weren't we told a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, that the the prequels were eventually coming? I think they did alright. There's a lot of animosity for the CGI, but I enjoy the artwork. Sometimes the physical props get dismissed because it's assumed they're CGI. The lack of physical craftsmanship turned some people off. Myself, I enjoy the show.
Don't get me wrong, I was one of those hoping Disney would buy Lucasfilm and make the last 3 with minimal CGI. Now, if Disney could save Nintendo....
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 07, 2016, 01:30:36 AM
Sounds like SWEP1.
Weren't we told a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, that the the prequels were eventually coming? I think they did alright. There's a lot of animosity for the CGI, but I enjoy the artwork. Sometimes the physical props get dismissed because it's assumed they're CGI. The lack of physical craftsmanship turned some people off. Myself, I enjoy the show.
They did alright? Are you saying what I think you're saying?
(http://www.thescifishow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DeadpoolJarJarPreview-680-380px.jpg)(http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/5/79//deadpool_4.jpg)
Imo, it's not really the CGI that sunk it - though Lucas sure loves to insert that stuff willy-nilly, distracting from scenes rather than adding to them - it was the poor writing. A lot of the characters were awful - especially in the dialogue department - and the plot was horrid, mandating idiocy for much of the cast.
Not to mention, Lucas didn't even use his actors' performances in those movies. Watch Hayden's face in this shot. See that "morphing" he goes through? Multiple takes were composited into that one shot.
https://gfycat.com/EthicalCapitalAmmonite
Lucas isn't the fantasy genius everyone thinks he is, he just got lucky the first time.
Quote from: Munch on February 07, 2016, 12:26:57 PM
Lucas isn't the fantasy genius everyone thinks he is, he just got lucky the first time.
Oh, the original movie was quite deliberate, not a matter of luck -- Lucas dug into Joseph Cambpell and deliberately aimed for every button he could. That's why it worked.
Also, he can't have known going in that he was creating a blockbuster (although he probably hoped he was), so he was free to just make the movie. He didn't have to look over his shoulder at a marketing behemoth that needed to be both fed and protected.
Perhaps we can all agree that the prequels were a disaster unfolding.
lol you know what I don't understand? Walking into the theatre to pick up our tickets May 18th this group of 20 y/o girls is walking by and they say, "what is Star Wars anyways?" and another replies, "I think it's about aliens fighting or something..."
If you don't like it that's fine, but how do you spend 20 years on Earth without knowing what it is?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 15, 2016, 07:17:03 AM
I watched the Firefly episodes after seeing "Serenity" and without any foreknowledge of the material. I liked the movie and the early episodes of the TV show, but they couldn't hold the overarching theme very long. Pity, it had potential. Or maybe that was all there was to say about those guys?
I saw Serenity under the same circumstances. I had never heard of Firefly. Serenity at first, just seemed like another "almost made it" Sci Fi attempt. I had some problems believing in Reevers, but something else grabbed me at an unconscious level, I suppose. About a year later, I remember being haunted by something undefinable about a movie that I couldn't even remember the name of. I just wanted another look, and through some creative googling descibing plot parts, I was able to actually identify the movie by name. So I rented it again. Then I bought the DVD for my own.
A few years later, a new girlfriend told me it was a wrap up done to satisfy the unquenched thirst of a large following of ardent fans, who created a shit storm when something called Firefly was put on the chopping block by a network boardroom. There were write in campaigns complaining it wasn't given a fair chance and aired at inappropriate times for the content, but management dropped it. She bought me a copy of the series, which barely amounted to a year of episodes, but I was taken. Later I bought another set in Blu-ray. I think there was much more for the series to develop and explore.
It was my first exposure to Director, Joss Whedon, who I decided was a Sci Fi genius, although he's directed some other strange, but interesting, things too. I was amazed at the first Avengers film, which surpassed my expectations, and during the credits at the theater, it identified Joss Whedon as the Director, which of course, I took as explaining everything that delighted me so much about the Avengers. I thought Whedon had dropped off the map with the demise of Firefly. I'm grateful that he didn't. I enjoy his irreverent treatment of religion, although he treats Firefly's Preacher Man with a great deal of compassion and respect.
Yeah, I love a lot of Whedon's stuff. Buffy, Angel, Firefly/Serenity, Dr Horrible, The Avengers. He has a knack for witty dialogue, quirky bands of heroes fighting against almost impossible odds, and killing off beloved characters (usually not the lead, but someone very close to the lead). He also loves ruining some fan theories.
I like how in his stuff, most of the characters aren't particularly religious.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
Yeah, I love a lot of Whedon's stuff. Buffy, Angel, Firefly/Serenity, Dr Horrible, The Avengers. He has a knack for witty dialogue, quirky bands of heroes fighting against almost impossible odds, and killing off beloved characters (usually not the lead, but someone very close to the lead). He also loves ruining some fan theories.
I like how in his stuff, most of the characters aren't particularly religious.
Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog was fascinating, but it was too far out there to ever be more than a cult classic. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. I don't know what Whedon was shooting for, but it was strange. And then there was Summer Glau in her River Tam character who shredded the Preacher's Bible by literally cutting out all the things that didn't make sense. When he protested, holding a handful of shredded paper, she told him his Bible was broken, and she had fixed it for him. :biggrin:
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
I like how in his stuff, most of the characters aren't particularly religious.
It seems that in sci fi, religion is a topic to be explored and not paraded as a real thing to take with you after the story has played out. Having said that, may the Force be with you.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 10, 2016, 11:24:36 AM
It seems that in sci fi, religion is a topic to be explored and not paraded as a real thing to take with you after the story has played out.
Exactly
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 10, 2016, 11:24:36 AM
Having said that, may the Force be with you.
And with you.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 10, 2016, 11:24:36 AM
It seems that in sci fi, religion is a topic to be explored and not paraded as a real thing to take with you after the story has played out. Having said that, may the Force be with you.
In Babylon Five, the Catholic church was still around, running a monastery in the interstices of the station, and even in the distant future (500 years later) it was still around on Earth post apocalypse. More realistic than most scifi ... which I find to be atheist wet dreams.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2016, 09:26:43 PM
In Babylon Five, the Catholic church was still around, running a monastery in the interstices of the station, and even in the distant future (500 years later) it was still around on Earth post apocalypse. More realistic than most scifi ... which I find to be atheist wet dreams.
It's still around, but definitely in decline. In the Lost Tales, the priest laments that it's dying out. Evidently, it didn't completely die out, as there is a monastery a thousand years in the future. But its real mission is actually secular - preserving history and fostering a new Enlightenment. Its priests are simply cloaking their true purpose in the trappings of religion. The B5 cast appear as saint-like beings preserved in their holy text. The Catholicism that we know of is more or less gone in that future.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 10, 2016, 09:40:32 PM
The B5 cast appear as saint-like beings preserved in their holy text.
Yep, from the little I've been able to tolerate, B5 seems all new age and video games.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 10, 2016, 10:07:07 PMYep, from the little I've been able to tolerate, B5 seems all new age and video games.
Yeah, there's definitely a new agey vibe. It's annoying, but thankfully, Garibaldi acts as the voice of reason most of the time. I'll let the video game comment slide since it was the first TV show to use CGI and the space battles are still passable two decades later. Also, there's a really quirky, borderline dad-joke level humor, thinly-veiled social commentary, and finally, some pretty moving speeches. Immensely popular franchises have been built on worse.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 11, 2016, 02:40:41 AM
Also, there's a really quirky, borderline dad-joke level humor
Perhaps that's why I laugh at it during moments where laughter seems inappropriate. Or, maybe it's on the verge of being so bad, it's good. If that's the case, I prefer Buck Rogers, Land of the Lost, or even Lost in Space.
The new star wars was feminist, politically correct bullshit. I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe at the cinema.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 11, 2016, 12:32:13 PM
Perhaps that's why I laugh at it during moments where laughter seems inappropriate. Or, maybe it's on the verge of being so bad, it's good. If that's the case, I prefer Buck Rogers, Land of the Lost, or even Lost in Space.
If you prefer Lost in Space .. you are truly lost. That was a dividing line in the 60s ... do you believe in progress or camp hijinks? I used to believe in progress, so I used to prefer Star Trek. But now I see that Vaudeville in space suits has its attractions.
Quote from: Dionysiou on February 18, 2016, 02:22:24 AM
The new star wars was feminist, politically correct bullshit. I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe at the cinema.
How so?
Quote from: Dionysiou on February 18, 2016, 02:22:24 AM
The new star wars was feminist, politically correct bullshit. I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe at the cinema.
The Rebellion is about all of us. If it makes you feel any better, I found the young cast attractive.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2016, 07:05:25 AM
do you believe in progress or camp hijinks?
Can't have one without the other. Although, I find it difficult to make it through a whole episode of Lost in Space. It's only on because it airs after Svengoolie. I'd rather watch Green Acres. I like Svengoolie, but I don't think I'd watch it if my GF didn't. I just don't watch much TV.
Quote from: Atheon on February 18, 2016, 07:59:42 AM
How so?
The overly interracial cast felt forced (hah). Like they had to have every minority get screen time. The sassy white girl, dopey black guy leads were the icing on top.
The chick was just a pro at everything, moreso than anyone i've ever heard of.
Master mechanic- Gave Hans solo advice on how to fix his own ship, fuckin lol.
Professional Pilot- who the hell taught her to fly like that and with whose ship? Desert nomads? classic
Force and lightsaber jedi- Able to use the force and a lightsaber skillfully with no prior training, even managing to beat an apprentice sith. Anyone else would have been wrecked. I wont even start on how the black dude had a crack too, essentially everyone was incompetent except for her. Immersion fatality.
Her entire persona screamed "I'm a strong independent woman! I don't need no man!"
Cack
Quote from: Dionysiou on February 19, 2016, 01:17:28 AM
The overly interracial cast felt forced (hah). Like they had to have every minority get screen time. The sassy white girl, dopey black guy leads were the icing on top.
So, an interracial cast makes it unacceptable? The only way for it to be acceptable is to have a cast of white men?
QuoteThe chick was just a pro at everything, moreso than anyone i've ever heard of.
To be explained in upcoming episodes. My theory: she is Luke's daughter and was trained as a youngling before being left on a remote planet to protect her from the Jedi purge.
QuoteHer entire persona screamed "I'm a strong independent woman! I don't need no man!"
Unlike Princess Leia, who was a weak, simpering flower... no, wait...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2aTU1hQJRE
Having a strong female lead does NOT make a movie feminist propaganda.
Quote from: Atheon on February 19, 2016, 02:36:38 AM
So, an interracial cast makes it unacceptable? The only way for it to be acceptable is to have a cast of white men?
To be fair, going from a 99% male and 90% white cast (three human women total in the original trilogy, and only one with more than a couple lines of dialogue) to anything approaching parity is a hell of a jarring transition. But yeah, I agree that it's not feminist propaganda or overly "PC" or anything like that.
Quote from: Atheon on February 19, 2016, 02:36:38 AM
So, an interracial cast makes it unacceptable? The only way for it to be acceptable is to have a cast of white men?
To be explained in upcoming episodes. My theory: she is Luke's daughter and was trained as a youngling before being left on a remote planet to protect her from the Jedi purge.
Unlike Princess Leia, who was a weak, simpering flower... no, wait...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2aTU1hQJRE
Having a strong female lead does NOT make a movie feminist propaganda.
Yeh! I clearly wrote white men only.
Even being trained as a youngling does not equate to that much skill and knowledge. It's utter bullshit that kills the immersion.
Leia couldn't backup half of her sassyness. This girl would wreck her too.