New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 248
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tail of the Bellcurve
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    I maintain that the first ~50% of Force Awakens is a good, maybe even very good, movie. Things are set up that could be paid off sooner or later, the film is tied to the OT without yet being a copy, and at that point you can imagine a fair number of places the story could go. The character intros basically work, it isn't completely fawning in its adulation of the OT, and it's a fun adventure story. This is I think basically you could hope for from a new SW movie.

    Then Rey gets the lightsaber, Starkiller Base is dumped on the audience from basically nowhere, and we spend the rest of the movie doing crappy ANH fanfic.

    But really the sin of the ST is the bit where it sure feels like nobody sat down and outlined the story in the first place. Not every line, or every scene, but the overall sense of what the hell this story actually is. Maybe they did that and then everybody ignored it or something, but boy was the overall result just a hot mess.
    Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
    When they shot him down on the highway,
    Down like a dog on the highway,
    And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.


    Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by warty goblin View Post
    I maintain that the first ~50% of Force Awakens is a good, maybe even very good, movie. Things are set up that could be paid off sooner or later, the film is tied to the OT without yet being a copy, and at that point you can imagine a fair number of places the story could go. The character intros basically work, it isn't completely fawning in its adulation of the OT, and it's a fun adventure story. This is I think basically you could hope for from a new SW movie.

    Then Rey gets the lightsaber, Starkiller Base is dumped on the audience from basically nowhere, and we spend the rest of the movie doing crappy ANH fanfic.

    But really the sin of the ST is the bit where it sure feels like nobody sat down and outlined the story in the first place. Not every line, or every scene, but the overall sense of what the hell this story actually is. Maybe they did that and then everybody ignored it or something, but boy was the overall result just a hot mess.
    I dunno, Even then, it's not great. The opener was cool. Stormtrooper trying to make good? That was a great plot hook. But they did literally nothing with the character from that point forward. They immediately pivot to Death Star 3, the embiggening, and that whole plot was just dumb. I'm not sure they made it to the halfway mark.

    Swapping the Empire for the First Order was also kind of pointless. Just have them be the still falling Empire remnants. It makes the new republic look a lot less stupid and pointless.

    I mean, I think we're kind of agreeing overall, but the lack of coherency starts early, I think. One could quibble over the exact shares of responsibility of the different directors, Kennedy, etc...but I am just content to smear blame across all of them.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tail of the Bellcurve
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    I dunno, Even then, it's not great. The opener was cool. Stormtrooper trying to make good? That was a great plot hook. But they did literally nothing with the character from that point forward. They immediately pivot to Death Star 3, the embiggening, and that whole plot was just dumb. I'm not sure they made it to the halfway mark.

    Swapping the Empire for the First Order was also kind of pointless. Just have them be the still falling Empire remnants. It makes the new republic look a lot less stupid and pointless.

    I mean, I think we're kind of agreeing overall, but the lack of coherency starts early, I think. One could quibble over the exact shares of responsibility of the different directors, Kennedy, etc...but I am just content to smear blame across all of them.
    Not great is honestly where most Star Wars tops out. As I said before, it's the less edgy store brand version of 1950s pulp sci-fi, goof, family friendly adventure story is as high as it's gonna get.

    The ST do not, as a whole or in component parts, constitute a good adventure story. I think the first half of TFA was a decent foundation for that, but it was incomplete and nothing capitalized on what parts of it did work. Instead the rest of that movie, and the rest of the ST, disappeared straight up its own butt about how Big A Deal Star Wars is. That's not a fun space adventure, that's brand management having a one night stand with a bad media studies lecture and popping out a movie.

    To be fair to the ST though, Star Wars fans are really bad about turning Star Wars into something way deeper and more important than a fun but inconsistent adventure story with excellent merchandising. Looking at the way fans talk about Star Wars, you can easily be convinced that they don't want a fun adventure story, they want a movie about Star Wars. And JJ Abrams is, unfortunately, a Star Wars fan.

    God save us from the fans is what I'm saying here. The fandom is nearly always the worst thing about any particular thing I enjoy.
    Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
    When they shot him down on the highway,
    Down like a dog on the highway,
    And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.


    Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dr.Samurai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ICU, under a cherry tree.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnoman View Post
    Not true. At all. There was never any such mandate.
    Mandate not needed.

    For me it's clear that they wanted to treat Star Wars irreverently, and disabuse everyone of any expectations. Rian's treatment is egregious in this, but even Abrams' "let's take it back to it's roots" required everything taking a giant leap backwards (at least Abrams appears to like Star Wars though).

    It's all very disappointing and very calculated. We're not just telling a story that picks up from the last one. We have goals in mind that are irrespective of the story, and we need the story to serve those goals.
    Meanwhile her role was limited in those films anyway - she was a producer, not even the executive producer (and had no role at all in VII)
    Kathleen Kennedy is one of the most competent and successful producers in the history of film.

    She co-chaired Lucasfilms with George, and then she was president of Lucasfilms before the movies were made. All the plans for before and after the transition were discussed between George and Kathleen. She hand-picked the directors. I'm sure she had nothing to do with anything about the sequels though...
    and the biggest flaws in the sequel trilogy come down to the people above her pushing for speed while letting J.J. Abrams (who was the director, executive producer, and primary writer of VII and IX) make most of the creative decisions. Rian Johnson was the director and writer of VIII, but was left with a trainwreck to try assembling a coherent plot from, and Abrams went out of his way to destroy everything Johnson tried to build up for IX.
    The biggest flaws with the sequels is that they lack any soul. The new characters suck, the old characters are torn down, the story (for what it is) is all over the place. And probably worst of all, the people that made these movies simply don't have the same values that Lucas did. So they can't really carry on the franchise in a recognizable way. They don't know how to tell stories that are impactful and meaningful. They have protagonists that just win. They have characters that are all in turmoil and angsty and have given up. They have plot lines/side quests that go nowhere, and the only person resembling a hero turns out to nearly get everyone killed and forces the good captain to have to sacrifice herself.
    She has the same role in the shows as she does in the movies.
    According to you that's a "limited" role, deserving of no blame/credit...
    But for some reason, all the credit for the shows go to other, male-er, personalities, while all the blame for the movies get shoved on to her.
    Look at those mighty windmills, look at those colossal strawmen! Look at how you tilt at them and knock them down. So courageous, so valiant. You are a saint.

    Back in the real world... if The Mandalorian had come first, Kathleen would be getting all the praise. If the sequels then came out we'd be scratching our heads wondering "wtf happened??" and on the edges you'd have some people losing their minds and scratching their eyes out, and others tripping over themselves praising the bold and refreshing new direction as they lick corporate boots.

    But that's not what happened. The sequels came out. They were terrible. People hated them. Those people were labeled "the fandom" and attacked and labeled awful things by the people involved in making the movies.

    The Mandalorian was a reaction to that. That's why credit isn't given.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    From my perspective, KK and company actually hit it out of the part with Rogue One. Tight story, decent characterization, homage to original cast without either tearing them down or allowing them to suck up all the oxygen. Tragic story, force powers present but not overwhelming. Everything believable. Krannic a decent villain, Jyn a terrific protagonist without being overpowered.

    Why did the same creative team who produced Rogue One fail so epically with the ST?

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    From my perspective, KK and company actually hit it out of the part with Rogue One. Tight story, decent characterization, homage to original cast without either tearing them down or allowing them to suck up all the oxygen. Tragic story, force powers present but not overwhelming. Everything believable. Krannic a decent villain, Jyn a terrific protagonist without being overpowered.

    Why did the same creative team who produced Rogue One fail so epically with the ST?

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    Because it was a different creative team.

    Also, while I like Rogue One, its entire plot revolved around addressing something that didn't need to be addressed. Having the exhaust port be a planned weakness was more than a little stupid IMO.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Because it was a different creative team.

    Also, while I like Rogue One, its entire plot revolved around addressing something that didn't need to be addressed. Having the exhaust port be a planned weakness was more than a little stupid IMO.
    One could just as easily say that the prequels revolved around addressing something that didnt need to be addressed. The opening crawl for ANH called the theft of the plans the first major Rebel victory, so theres clearly room for a story there. They made it a fairly good story, so more power to them.

    As for the exhaust port, my headcanon is that the port's existence wasnt the sabotage, but rather not correcting the weakness. He saw a problem earlier on in development and chose to leave it off his list of things to correct.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tail of the Bellcurve
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    One could just as easily say that the prequels revolved around addressing something that didnt need to be addressed. The opening crawl for ANH called the theft of the plans the first major Rebel victory, so theres clearly room for a story there. They made it a fairly good story, so more power to them.
    How did Darth Vader become Darth Vader and overthrow a system of government that had more or less successfully endured for a thousand years or more is a topic with a lot of inherent drama. You don't need to make a movie (or three) about it, but the potential for a story is at least clearly there.

    I'm less convinced that the engineering flaw in the giant super-complex weapon harnessing a stupid amount of power is super dramatic and ripe with narrative potential. Like you can just say "it's very complicated, somebody messed up" and that pretty much covers it. So I thought the plot they came up with for mega-drama was kinda uninteresting and forced. Not bad, just unneccessary, and frequently the least complex approach possible.
    Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
    When they shot him down on the highway,
    Down like a dog on the highway,
    And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.


    Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by warty goblin View Post
    How did Darth Vader become Darth Vader and overthrow a system of government that had more or less successfully endured for a thousand years or more is a topic with a lot of inherent drama. You don't need to make a movie (or three) about it, but the potential for a story is at least clearly there.

    I'm less convinced that the engineering flaw in the giant super-complex weapon harnessing a stupid amount of power is super dramatic and ripe with narrative potential. Like you can just say "it's very complicated, somebody messed up" and that pretty much covers it. So I thought the plot they came up with for mega-drama was kinda uninteresting and forced. Not bad, just unneccessary, and frequently the least complex approach possible.
    Rogue One was always about the acquisition of the plans though, not how the exhaust port got put there. The actual port gets like a line of dialogue about it, and then the plot moves on to getting the plans to the rebels.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dr.Samurai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ICU, under a cherry tree.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    The prequels are very flawed, and I did not like them my first time around, and I don't really rewatch them.

    But for me, it's not because of the political drama, Palpatine manipulating everyone behind the scenes, and playing both sides of the conflict. I thought all of that was enjoyable and Sidious is an awesome bad guy and suitable as the antagonist for an empire spanning galaxies.

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Rogue One was always about the acquisition of the plans though, not how the exhaust port got put there. The actual port gets like a line of dialogue about it, and then the plot moves on to getting the plans to the rebels.
    The acquisition of the plans is useless without the exhaust port weakness. In the original, it's a desparate bid to find a weakness. In Rogue One, it's the entire point of getting the plans because it's a specific weakness explicitly put in as sabotage. And it's really ****ty sabotage, since it requires a near-impossible shot per the movie. It was a move of sheer desperation. Having it be planned by the architect is stupid.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    The movie focuses more on what Galen did to the reactor (make it fragile, unstable, so that one hit and the whole thing goes up)

    Saw, the reactor module, that's the key. That's the place I've laid my trap. It's well hidden and unstable, one blast to any part of it will destroy the entire station. You'll need the plans, the structural plans for the Death Star to find the reactor. I know there's a complete engineering archive in the data vault at the Citadel Tower on Scarif. Any pressurized explosion to the reactor module will set off a chain reaction that will destroy the entire station...

    ...


    You said your father made a trap.
    The reactor. He's placed a weakness there. He's been hiding it for years. He said if you can blow the reactor - the module - the whole system goes down.

    It's the novelization that suggests he put in the exhaust port as well .
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2022-07-21 at 03:28 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tail of the Bellcurve
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    The acquisition of the plans is useless without the exhaust port weakness. In the original, it's a desparate bid to find a weakness. In Rogue One, it's the entire point of getting the plans because it's a specific weakness explicitly put in as sabotage. And it's really ****ty sabotage, since it requires a near-impossible shot per the movie. It was a move of sheer desperation. Having it be planned by the architect is stupid.
    Right, ANH always made me figure the rebels stole the plans, looked at the plans, and located a design flaw or compromise that could be exploited. This is on its own a 100% satisfactory explanation for how the hero knows where the hurty bits are so he can shoot them. At no point did ANH make me wonder if the weapons designer left a deliberate but incredibly minor flaw that only his daughter could find by using her childhood nickname on the off chance she managed to break into the most secure facility in the Galaxy.

    It'd be like if Amazon decided to do a whole Hobbit prequel about how the thrush knows to trust Bard because, like, his father left a coded message on a secret snail shell he could only understand by using his childhood nickname. And also this proves that really his father loved him all along even if he helped Smaug develop the Thrush Mega-Roaster with Sauce-Spritzing technology to ensure juicy tenderness without compromising on that satisfying crunch.
    Last edited by warty goblin; 2022-07-21 at 03:34 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by warty goblin View Post
    Not great is honestly where most Star Wars tops out. As I said before, it's the less edgy store brand version of 1950s pulp sci-fi, goof, family friendly adventure story is as high as it's gonna get.
    From the perspective that Star Wars is three movies made from 1977-1983 and two videogames called TIE Fighter and Knights of the Old Republic it's all great. I recognise no other Star Wars.

    Right, ANH always made me figure the rebels stole the plans, looked at the plans, and located a design flaw or compromise that could be exploited. This is on its own a 100% satisfactory explanation for how the hero knows where the hurty bits are so he can shoot them.
    I mean that's what ANH actually says they did. "An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has demonstrated a weakness in the battlestation".

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    Kathleen Kennedy is one of the most competent and successful producers in the history of film.
    Well connected, yes.

    All of the rest, no. Hollywood, unfortunately, is all about connections.

    Back in the real world... if The Mandalorian had come first, Kathleen would be getting all the praise. If the sequels then came out we'd be scratching our heads wondering "wtf happened??" and on the edges you'd have some people losing their minds and scratching their eyes out, and others tripping over themselves praising the bold and refreshing new direction as they lick corporate boots.
    Producers honestly don't usually get the focus. Exceptions exist, but we tend to focus on directors, actors, and sometimes, the writers. Do producers have some involvement? Of course. How much is somewhat open to interpretation unless one is privy to details of the process. I don't know that a good show would have had people inherently praising the producer.

    When the fans are blamed, the fans dislike the blame, and tend to react to it. This is kind of fair. The fans have quite little influence as to how things get made, usually. A film that is disliked isn't really their fault. In matters of taste, the customer is always right. Blaming the audience for a movie getting panned isn't the sort of thing that would fly in most industries. If you were a cook, and everyone hated your food, would it be reasonable to blame the diners?

    I think not.

    So, whenever that kind of arrogance is displayed, the fans remember, and return the bitter dislike with interest. When a creator accepts that a work was flawed, the same sort of vengeful spirit isn't displayed. Halle Berry showed up in person to accept her Razzie for Catwoman, a truly awful film....and nobody hates her for taking part in it.

    So, I think regardless of the order of works, if KK decides to lash out at the fans, the fans decide they hate her, and that's pretty much the end of it. That's pretty much how it goes for everyone.

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by GloatingSwine View Post
    From the perspective that Star Wars is three movies made from 1977-1983 and two videogames called TIE Fighter and Knights of the Old Republic it's all great. I recognise no other Star Wars.



    I mean that's what ANH actually says they did. "An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has demonstrated a weakness in the battlestation".
    No love for N64's Rogue Squadron?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    All of the rest, no. Hollywood, unfortunately, is all about connections.
    So is the rest of the corporate world (and more, really). And yet.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    No love for N64's Rogue Squadron?
    Coming off of TIE Fighter it just felt a bit small and limited. Cool Hoth level though.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Yes, we were robbed of an Empire Strikes Back remake after Abrams' Star Wars remake. I weep for that lost work.
    Were we? Leia's people evacuate in a hurry, and the jedi squire meets a weird teacher on a faraway planet and has a vision of himself in a dark cave while the rebel leadership is in dire straits. The jedi's friends then visit an apparently civilised place, where they meet an untrustworthy ally who gives them to the enemy. The jedi flies to them, then Luke duels the dark jedi and the Falcon flies away.

    I think it's Empire, except Luke asks Rey to leave and with kamikazes piled on top. Which is interesting, in that double-faking a suicide bombing to get paid was Leia's thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aedilred's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bristol
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    I could say that, if I believed for one second that Abrams actually intentionally built up anything or had any sort of plan or vision beyond his immediate work. Which I do not, to be clear.
    OK, but I still don't feel that absolves Johnson of any responsibility. It doesn't really matter what, if anything, Abrams intended for episodes VIII and IX when he finished episode VII. He left a bunch of plot hooks to be picked up, and Johnson seemed to make a point of hammering all of them flat, leaving a complete mess in his wake. You don't have to know what the writer intended to see that, you just have to have some basic idea of narrative structure.

    Part of this is, as I think other people have commented elsewhere, that Johnson is not a bad director (I didn't like Looper, but I do think Brick and Knives Out are good), but he was the wrong director for a Star Wars movie. Star Wars, throughout both the original series and the prequels, plays with an almost entirely straight bat. It is a classic story which diverges very little from a standard formula. The plot twists are themselves not particularly radical ones (the mercenary finds his conscience and helps the heroes; the baddie is the hero's father). Johnson, meanwhile, revels in being tricky and subversive and his natural habitat is thrillers. Given a very pedestrian setup to work with, and given more or less free rein, his first and last instinct is to drive a bus through it and do something wacky.

    Like Peelee, I do have some respect for that. The Force Awakens was little more than a desperately unimaginative remake of Star Wars in its story beats and I'll give a director credit for not just regurgitating the same old stuff in the sequel. But even if what was left to him by Abrams wasn't very exciting, he did take a bulldozer to it and didn't build an awful lot to take its place.

    As a standalone movie, even a Star Wars standalone movie, TLJ could have been great. As the middle entry in a trilogy, it was terrible.
    GITP Blood Bowl Manager Cup
    Red Sabres - Season I Cup Champions, two-time Cup Semifinalists
    Anlec Razors - Two-time Cup Semifinalists
    Bad Badenhof Bats - Season VII Cup Champions
    League Wiki

    Spoiler: Previous Avatars
    Show
    (by Strawberries)
    (by Rain Dragon)

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Perth, West Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aedilred View Post
    OK, but I still don't feel that absolves Johnson of any responsibility. It doesn't really matter what, if anything, Abrams intended for episodes VIII and IX when he finished episode VII. He left a bunch of plot hooks to be picked up, and Johnson seemed to make a point of hammering all of them flat, leaving a complete mess in his wake. You don't have to know what the writer intended to see that, you just have to have some basic idea of narrative structure.

    Part of this is, as I think other people have commented elsewhere, that Johnson is not a bad director (I didn't like Looper, but I do think Brick and Knives Out are good), but he was the wrong director for a Star Wars movie.
    "I would say to Rian, 'we have to think about the fans', and Rian would say 'no, we have to think about the story'."
    - Mark Hamill.

    Putting it most kindly, that one line rather eloquently sums up the two forces creating plot tensions in the sequel trilogy. On one hand you had an established universe where people had expectations maybe not so much about the plot but about the characters, and on the other hand you had a desire to try and keep the story "fresh" or "interesting" or "inventive". I think the jury's back with its verdict that Johnson got that balance terribly wrong, and that even with his charming, craggy "Don't Care Anymore" attitude, Hamill's initial instincts were right ... even if he now says under threat of lawsuits that The Last Star Wars Film was great.

    But I'll also go further: Johnson was the wrong director for a sequel, full stop. The guy is at best a somewhat advanced indie movie director. He is on record that he wanted to make a Star Wars film that was personal to him. Noble ambition, I suppose, and sure, if the story doesn't move you, it likely won't move anyone else ... but that can be taken too far as well. Especially when you think your personal idiosyncrasies and (seeming) contempt for filmgoing audiences are reflected in, or resonate with, the wider public. Who, after all, you are making this movie for; KK didn't give you a 300 million dollar budget to make a film that only the director would want to see.

    "But he's inventive! He tells good stories! Had it been a standalone film The Last Star Wars Film could have been great!"

    That's debatable too. I doubt The Last Star Wars Film could have worked even as a standalone movie. Narratively, subverting expectations is a one-trick pony, and Johnson's filmography before The Last Star Wars Film was a fifty-fifty for abject box office failures. And even then, even if we leave aside towering cinematic masterpieces like Brothers Bloom, were there sequels to Brick or Looper that I missed?

    "But Knives Out!" The murder mystery genre is so formulaic it rivals the average Harlequin romance for patterns and predictability, so it has more room to be made "fresh" or "subverted". And even then Knives Out is somewhere approaching a Wayans brothers parody of the whole genre, it's not a serious take. What will be interesting to see is how Knives Out's sequel will be received. Johnson's never made a second movie in a series he's created before, and the fact this is called "A Knives Out mystery" with only Benoit Blanc returning says to me Johnson's going to stay as far away from continuing plotlines or throughlines or character development as possible. Which is easy for the genre -- parody -- but it's shooting fish in a barrel for the whole murder mystery genre too; even Kenneth Branagh couldn't make Hercule Poirot terribly interesting even with two full movies to spend on it. In short - there's a different art to writing a sequel to writing an original standalone film, and in The Last Star Wars Film Johnson rather missed that crucial difference.

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2022

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    People don't get mad at bad movies. People get mad at bad movies that trash the lore, history, and appeal of whatever franchise

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Great White North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    It doesn't happen to me often, because I just don't go see movies that I think will be bad/annoy me/not to my liking.

    But it still happens from time to time.

    Alien: Covenant was the last time. I came out of the theatre angry. I can't actually remember the last time I had that kind of reaction to a film.

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by sluggerbaloney View Post
    People don't get mad at bad movies. People get mad at bad movies that trash the lore, history, and appeal of whatever franchise
    This. People get passionate about things they care about. They want to see those things treated with respect. If an adaptation changes things arbitrarily or a sequel disregards what came before, then it's a sign that the person in charge doesn't care about the thing they're working on or thinks their ideas are somehow better and more important than the original work.

    Two examples, both from the same source.
    • Game of Thrones season 1 was incredibly true to the book of the same name. Changes were made, but these tended to be minor and easily justified by the constraints imposed by TV that just don't exist in a book. The only change that comes to mind that really irritated me was the way they handled a battle Tyrion was in. Rather than show the battle, they have Tyrion get hit in the head and knocked out right at the beginning (before the fighting even starts) and he doesn't wake up until it's over. Glossing over the battle I could understand (budget reasons), but knocking him out rubbed me the wrong way. In the book, he did well in that battle and it would've shown his character a lot more respect to just fade out and recap what happened later.
    • Come seasons 2 and 3, they've changed Robb Stark's storyline. In both versions, Robb gets engaged to the daughter of Lord Walder Frey, breaks off the engagement, and loses his life as a result. In the book, he does this because while wounded and delirious, a different girl sleeps with him when he's in no state to know what's going on. Robb shares the same fatal flaw his father had in that he's too honorable for his own good. Put into a bad situation, he tries to do what he believes the honorable thing is and the results are tragic. In the show, he meets a foreign healer treating those wounded in battle, decides he likes her better and decides "I don't want to marry Walder Frey's daughter." Instead of trying to make the best out of a situation he had no control over, he makes a conscious and deliberate choice. Most people didn't check out until like season 5 at the soonest and the real hate didn't start until seasons 7 and 8, but this is what killed the show for me.

    I choose those two examples because they're concrete cases where you can compare what was written in the books to what the show did, but the biggest source of anger for most people was the way the series ended. I had already checked out by then and came back more out of morbid curiosity rather than any investment, but the general feeling from what I could tell is that there was no build up to what happened. That even if the books would (assuming Martin ever finishes them) end that way, that there needed to be far more character development than what the show gave for what happened to make sense. Some of the absolute garbage said by some of the actors in response, when all the criticism was directed at the writers, certainly didn't help things.
    Last edited by TheSummoner; 2022-08-01 at 07:14 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    because it's great! complaining about the inconsequential is one of life's simple joys.

    it's a treat.
    Stop writing letters to Viswanathan Anand.

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Perth, West Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    [*]Come seasons 2 and 3, they've changed Robb Stark's storyline. In both versions, Robb gets engaged to the daughter of Lord Walder Frey, breaks off the engagement, and loses his life as a result. In the book, he does this because while wounded and delirious, a different girl sleeps with him when he's in no state to know what's going on. Robb shares the same fatal flaw his father had in that he's too honorable for his own good. Put into a bad situation, he tries to do what he believes the honorable thing is and the results are tragic. In the show, he meets a foreign healer treating those wounded in battle, decides he likes her better and decides "I don't want to marry Walder Frey's daughter." Instead of trying to make the best out of a situation he had no control over, he makes a conscious and deliberate choice.
    I've got to say that in retrospect I found that choice by the TV series as pretty puzzling. The setting was one where we already had precedents for shotgun weddings (Ned and Cat) and spouses gritting their teeth and putting up with their own or their partner's bad choices (Eddard and Cat, at least in that Cat thought Jon was Ned's bastard). And the books seem to imply that Jeyne Westerling is genuinely dedicated to Robb, so in that respect the relationship between Robb and not-Jeyne actually is no different to the book one.

    Did the TV writers think their audience wouldn't buy that Robb would marry someone after one night of bumping uglies, and so felt they had to build up the relationship of the two before they got married? Was that a decision based on the medium, the audience, or the writers' predilections? I mean, the first seasons had everything including attempted child murder and incest, but they didn't think the audience would buy Robb Stark being driven by his father's example of honour?

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saintheart View Post
    I've got to say that in retrospect I found that choice by the TV series as pretty puzzling. The setting was one where we already had precedents for shotgun weddings (Ned and Cat) and spouses gritting their teeth and putting up with their own or their partner's bad choices (Eddard and Cat, at least in that Cat thought Jon was Ned's bastard). And the books seem to imply that Jeyne Westerling is genuinely dedicated to Robb, so in that respect the relationship between Robb and not-Jeyne actually is no different to the book one.

    Did the TV writers think their audience wouldn't buy that Robb would marry someone after one night of bumping uglies, and so felt they had to build up the relationship of the two before they got married? Was that a decision based on the medium, the audience, or the writers' predilections? I mean, the first seasons had everything including attempted child murder and incest, but they didn't think the audience would buy Robb Stark being driven by his father's example of honour?
    According to Bryan Cogman, the choice was made deliberately to have Robb chose love over duty as a way to up the drama, and also as part of a way of giving Richard Madden more screen time as Robb (since he's basically not in book 2 of the novels and the entire incident with Jeyne happens off-screen). I also suspect the move was made to make this particular part of the path to the Red Wedding seem less random. Robb's breaking of the marriage pact by sleeping with and subsequently marrying Jeyne off-screen is, not least because it happens off-screen, one of the more poorly justified 'moar crapsuck! moar!' moves in ASOIAF (the alternate history where Robb doesn't take this action, perhaps simply because he doesn't get injured, is so, so much brighter).

    That said, I wasn't happy with the show version, especially because I never bought the Robb/Talisa relationship being anywhere near stormy enough for Robb to willfully and knowingly make such a massively self-destructive decision.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by sluggerbaloney View Post
    People don't get mad at bad movies. People get mad at bad movies that trash the lore, history, and appeal of whatever franchise
    I disagree on this. I was fine with Tom Bombadil not being in Fellowship of the Ring and Arwen's role being expanded. I was fine with the squid being taken out of Zach Snyder's version of "Watchmen". I was fine with most of the changes made to Game of Thrones seasons 1 through, say, 5. When you adapt a book to a movie, you have to make changes.

    I didn't like most of GoT seasons of 7 and 8 and, of course, there was no source material to base the scripts on.

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trafalgar View Post
    I disagree on this. I was fine with Tom Bombadil not being in Fellowship of the Ring and Arwen's role being expanded. I was fine with the squid being taken out of Zach Snyder's version of "Watchmen". I was fine with most of the changes made to Game of Thrones seasons 1 through, say, 5. When you adapt a book to a movie, you have to make changes.

    I didn't like most of GoT seasons of 7 and 8 and, of course, there was no source material to base the scripts on.
    I was fine with almost all of Peter Jackson's adaptation of LOTR and, in fact, in some things I think he did better. The two things I didn't like were:

    1) Faramir trying to take the ring to Gondor. The original Faramir wasn't even tempted to do this. I felt like this was a form of character assassination. Not just him, Aragorn was a lot more reluctant and a lot less heroic than he was in the books. PJ didn't take this far enough to be more than a mild annoyance, but it follows the themes we've established in thread.

    2) Elves marching up to defend Helm's deep. Really, they had no reason to be there. It just seemed jarring in the context of the book universe since they had their own wars elsewhere to fight. Still, this was a creative decision on PJ's part.

    These were only mild mis-steps in an otherwise masterful effort that was obviously a labor of love, so they were easy to forgive. I only mention them because they support the arguments given here.


    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    I was fine with almost all of Peter Jackson's adaptation of LOTR and, in fact, in some things I think he did better. The two things I didn't like were:

    1) Faramir trying to take the ring to Gondor. The original Faramir wasn't even tempted to do this. I felt like this was a form of character assassination. Not just him, Aragorn was a lot more reluctant and a lot less heroic than he was in the books. PJ didn't take this far enough to be more than a mild annoyance, but it follows the themes we've established in thread.

    2) Elves marching up to defend Helm's deep. Really, they had no reason to be there. It just seemed jarring in the context of the book universe since they had their own wars elsewhere to fight. Still, this was a creative decision on PJ's part.

    These were only mild mis-steps in an otherwise masterful effort that was obviously a labor of love, so they were easy to forgive. I only mention them because they support the arguments given here.


    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    Faramir was changed specifically to help show him overcoming the lure of the ring compared to Boromir. Not being tempted in the first place just kind of makes it seem like he didnt understand it, or was somehow magically immune to it, as opposed to being of stronger character than Boromir to be tempted and ultimately give it up on his own. In this case I agree with the decision. It makes Faramir seem more connected to the rest of his family, but also better than them still.

    And the elves were there because PJ just wanted bigger and bigger armies standing outside his forts, and they wanted it to at least seem like Helms Deep had a chance. Plus, the elves needed something else to do. In this case, I wouldnt have made that decision, but darn, it was cool anyway.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    I was fine with almost all of Peter Jackson's adaptation of LOTR and, in fact, in some things I think he did better.
    What do you think he did better?
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •