543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Dec 30, 2015 17:18:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Dec 30, 2015 17:35:19 GMT -5
Personally I liked Carrie Fisher's stance on the Slave Leia costume... that may just be because Carrie Fisher is awesome... {Spoiler}also referring to Jaba as saliva testicle is funny  |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 30, 2015 17:40:17 GMT -5
Lucas doesn't understand that TFA had to have a "retro" feel to mesh with the original trilogy which was made in the late 70's and 80's.
He's still an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 30, 2015 21:26:01 GMT -5
 You know what was the most retro about it? It was fun. Strip away all the plot problems, dialogue problems, acting etc, for the most part the prequels just aren't that much fun to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 30, 2015 21:38:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Dec 30, 2015 22:07:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 30, 2015 22:11:58 GMT -5
The people complaining about Episode 7 being similar to Episode 4.
Are they aware Episode 4 itself follows the standards of the classic hero's journey which countless stories are based on?
It's not like Episode 4's basic structure and plot was anything innovative.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 30, 2015 23:32:46 GMT -5
I dunno, Slave Leia outfit is hot, and I don't really see women who choose to wear it as cosplay or whatever if they like it is inherently creepy or anti-feminist. Would depend on context really. Maybe not *inherently* creepy, if any girl or guy wants to cosplay as Slave Leia I'm fine with it. But I do get why Disney would want to shy away from the whole thing, and I certainly don't see their decision as a symptom of "PC run amok" or anything like that. Yeah, context is important. If a woman wants to cosplay slave bikini Leia, that's her prerogative, and can be an empowering thing for her to do; in the context of the actual movie itself it was pretty fan-service-y. If somebody wants to cosplay it, fine; if Disney doesn't really want to go back to it or promote it, fine. On the topic of Lucas' feelings, I think I've seen that take shape a bit in the last week as the "we need an article criticizing Star Wars" orders have come down from editors to writing staffs. The general critique has been "the prequels weren't good, but they were at least ambitious, while the new one is good, but more creatively lazy." I mean, in a way I understand what they're saying; by being in large part a call back to the original, TFA doesn't blaze a trail the way the originals did (nor draw on as much older material, since its source material IS the original Star Wars), nor does it make an attempt to be something very different the way the prequels did. But the article I keep coming back to is one Matt Yglesias wrote for Vox.com - he made the point that we really can't gauge TFA on its own beyond our own personal enjoyment levels of it until we see what happens in Episodes VIII and IX. Once we see those, we'll see TFA as part of a larger story, and we'll know for certain if its "retro" styling worked well in that larger context, if the filmmakers involved decide to go in a bold and daring direction with things, or if they're going to sit back and just bank on what works to appease the audience. I have a feeling they're going to do something bold with the final two, but as an overall perspective I can appreciate that. |
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Dec 30, 2015 23:35:12 GMT -5
Lucas doesn't understand that TFA had to have a "retro" feel to mesh with the original trilogy which was made in the late 70's and 80's. He's still an idiot. He shouldn't have sold it to white slavers if he cared so much. |
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Dec 31, 2015 0:13:40 GMT -5
Maybe not *inherently* creepy, if any girl or guy wants to cosplay as Slave Leia I'm fine with it. But I do get why Disney would want to shy away from the whole thing, and I certainly don't see their decision as a symptom of "PC run amok" or anything like that. Yeah, context is important. If a woman wants to cosplay slave bikini Leia, that's her prerogative, and can be an empowering thing for her to do; in the context of the actual movie itself it was pretty fan-service-y. If somebody wants to cosplay it, fine; if Disney doesn't really want to go back to it or promote it, fine. On the topic of Lucas' feelings, I think I've seen that take shape a bit in the last week as the "we need an article criticizing Star Wars" orders have come down from editors to writing staffs. The general critique has been "the prequels weren't good, but they were at least ambitious, while the new one is good, but more creatively lazy." I mean, in a way I understand what they're saying; by being in large part a call back to the original, TFA doesn't blaze a trail the way the originals did (nor draw on as much older material, since its source material IS the original Star Wars), nor does it make an attempt to be something very different the way the prequels did. But the article I keep coming back to is one Matt Yglesias wrote for Vox.com - he made the point that we really can't gauge TFA on its own beyond our own personal enjoyment levels of it until we see what happens in Episodes VIII and IX. Once we see those, we'll see TFA as part of a larger story, and we'll know for certain if its "retro" styling worked well in that larger context, if the filmmakers involved decide to go in a bold and daring direction with things, or if they're going to sit back and just bank on what works to appease the audience. I have a feeling they're going to do something both with the final two, but as an overall perspective I can appreciate that. To your last point, it reminds me of something that Whedon said about the process of making Age of Ultron: that these sequels that serve to share and expand a universe, each installment becomes more and more like television, in which the narrative is serialized (tune in next time!) at the expense of stand-alone stories. Or, that these stories no longer have any ending whatsoever, and have to exist in perpetuity, so there are only additions to the story, not new stories altogether. So if the comparison holds, especially underneath the Disney umbrella of mega-properties, why is it surprising that one of these sequel-franchise-universe-building films, like the new Star Wars, wouldn't feel like a rerun? If movies have become like television, at some point in time it's bound to happen, in a way that's a lot more apparent than when people complain about the Marvel movies being formulaic. And perhaps the problem is intensified with the TFA example: because A New Hope certainly had references--westerns, Saturday serials, Flash Gordon adventures, Japanese cinema--but it synthesized those ideas into something new, or, less charitably, it presented those references in a new way. TFA's sole point of reference is, seemingly, other Star Wars movies. In a galaxy far, far away and a long time ago, you can tell any story imaginable, and you're guaranteed to make money. So why do fans have to wait until the next movie to get 'the real story', the 'new story'? Just tell it now. And Disney already has the benefit of the doubt because Lucas isn't involved in the creative process anymore. Then again, perhaps it is asking too much of a company like Disney to present something new and imaginative when it's easier to buy IPs and repackage them. Lucas doesn't understand that TFA had to have a "retro" feel to mesh with the original trilogy which was made in the late 70's and 80's. He's still an idiot. He shouldn't have sold it to white slavers if he cared so much. Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru? |
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,545 
|
Post by FinalGwen on Dec 31, 2015 0:27:11 GMT -5
If we want to see the real legacy of the Slave Leia bikini, it's not the people who choose to cosplay it, it's how Carrie Fisher is treated online now, her appearance being treated as the only important thing about her. She's had to call out the people treating her like shit because she isn't in her 20s any more. Leia Organa as a character is a diplomat, a fighter, a rebel leader. In none of those roles are her looks the slightest bit important. The only time her looking good is a factor? When an alien slug is forcing her to be shown off as a sexualised object. And Hollywood, the media and even certain sections of fandom are our very own Hutts. Look at this article from the New York Post: nypost.com/2015/12/30/if-carrie-fisher-doesnt-like-being-judged-on-looks-she-should-quit-acting/That's what the bikini represents. Good riddance to it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Spelunker! on Dec 31, 2015 1:14:03 GMT -5
If we want to see the real legacy of the Slave Leia bikini, it's not the people who choose to cosplay it, it's how Carrie Fisher is treated online now, her appearance being treated as the only important thing about her. She's had to call out the people treating her like shit because she isn't in her 20s any more. Leia Organa as a character is a diplomat, a fighter, a rebel leader. In none of those roles are her looks the slightest bit important. The only time her looking good is a factor? When an alien slug is forcing her to be shown off as a sexualised object. And Hollywood, the media and even certain sections of fandom are our very own Hutts. Look at this article from the New York Post: nypost.com/2015/12/30/if-carrie-fisher-doesnt-like-being-judged-on-looks-she-should-quit-acting/That's what the bikini represents. Good riddance to it. Everyone is judged on their looks as a celebrity, no matter how minor. Male or female, good looking or bad. Hell, look at how this board treats Triple H's nose or Kevin Owens', Tommy Dreamer's or Matt Hardy's weight. I'd say most of the surprise at Carrie Fisher would just be people not having seen her for 30 years. She hasn't been particularly high profile since Star Wars. Mark Hamill routinely gets the same stuff. Discussion of his random appearance in Kingsmen or his role as the Trickster in Flash mostly consisted of THAT's MARK HAMILL? |
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748 
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Dec 31, 2015 2:05:19 GMT -5
Wild speculation below, so it is spoilered for anyone who doesn't want their own take and speculations on the film tainted. It's just some thoughts I had, and I could see it making sense and unfolding this way. {Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler} so, there are a lot of sequences in different portions of the movie that I can mash up and lay the groundwork for a background story. Rey is waiting for parents or family that supposedly is never going to come. Maz Kanata tells her at a ciritical point of discovery that they're never coming for her.
Wild theory: Rey was a pupil of Luke's around the time Ben Solo broke nasty. Now hear me out. The evil unleashed at the time was likely huge. A break in the Force, if you will. We already know Luke took it hard and blamed himself. It is possible, nay LIKELY, he would not want any of his paduwans to be exposed to this major disturbance. So what if he "Force-wiped" the mind of Rey and put her in the care of Lor San Tekka, who is basically on the same planet as an anonymous overseer to make sure she's ok, all without her own knowing?
Lor San Tekka has a missing piece of the location, so what if Luke trusted him with this in some sort of "you'll know when the time is right" fashion, assuming at the time that it would be more for Rey than the situation we see at the beginning of the film where the Resistace's hand is being forced? So he calls an audible by turning it over to Leia and the gang.
Now, evidence. Kylo sees into her mind once captured and just before she escapes. He distinctly sees "an island" in her head. However, she comments earlier how Jakku's wasteland is all she really knows. Kylo Ren could be tapping into that dormant past and sees the Jedi training ground. This also backs up the "connection"' he has with her that others are interpreting as a familial brother/sister link. What if it is a link to the past instead and Kylo's realization is that she was a peer undergoing the same training when he was back in the day? To me, this would be a super interesting link that defies the baiting that many are willing to bite on.
Further evidence. The light saber touching sequence. She is seeing what seems to be links to the past. So, with Luke being part of the sequence acting in a "defeated" fashion as he places his hand on R2, he could have wiped that ordeal from her mind and it is coming back to her in that moment. There are slain Jedi or Jedi trainees in one of those sequences. Another suppressed memory. The reason she is experiencing this and the reason she just kinda realizes how to do the Jedi mind trick and use a light saber and all of that stuff is because the Force is awakening ... from dormancy. Not because she is a Mary Sue with inexplicable instinct. She could have been taught the ways of the Force, and the awakening is now happening. Gives me cold chills.
R2 has been rendered useless since that day. Could Luke have disabled him on purpose until Rey linked to him? Though it's not direct, Luke's "presence" is in this surrogate and again another "awakening." Don't get me wrong. Not saying at all that R2 is Force sensitive. Ha. We just know that R2 is EXTREMELY good at taking orders, and he could have shut down with this valuable info until "the missing link" presented itself. He's just doing what he is programmed to do.
Also, "that's another story for another time." Maz was a caretaker for the light saber until the awakening happened. I would say that she was in on it at some point, and she is realizing that the grown up Rey is the one that Luke referenced to her at some point. (I have a different theory on Maz actually, but it's quite different than this and I prefer this idea over my other one.) I am voice typing this as I ride down the road. So forgive me if it is sporadic or has any typos. The theory is much better and more fun to discuss vocally. But, I figured I would post some of the discussion here. I have not been on any Star Wars forums or anything like that. This forum is the only place i've really type anything out to discuss since the movie came out. Part of that is because I didn't want a bunch of people trying to ruin it . Thought I would throw it out there and offer an alternative to what I hope is just baiting from the storytellers in this first film. I would love for something like this to catch us off guard in a positive way as the next two films progress. |
|
|
|
Post by Raskovnik on Dec 31, 2015 2:09:37 GMT -5
I just watched it, IMAX 3D. f***ing loved it. I enjoyed it way more than I thought I would and like all the new characters a lot. Finn is my favorite but I liked Rey more than I thought I would and Poe is cool and handsome.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Dec 31, 2015 9:07:06 GMT -5
If we want to see the real legacy of the Slave Leia bikini, it's not the people who choose to cosplay it, it's how Carrie Fisher is treated online now, her appearance being treated as the only important thing about her. She's had to call out the people treating her like shit because she isn't in her 20s any more. Leia Organa as a character is a diplomat, a fighter, a rebel leader. In none of those roles are her looks the slightest bit important. The only time her looking good is a factor? When an alien slug is forcing her to be shown off as a sexualised object. And Hollywood, the media and even certain sections of fandom are our very own Hutts. Look at this article from the New York Post: nypost.com/2015/12/30/if-carrie-fisher-doesnt-like-being-judged-on-looks-she-should-quit-acting/That's what the bikini represents. Good riddance to it. I don't really have a dog in this fight but if you're going to bring up the woman herself... Carrie Fisher's response to people trying to get rid of it is that any ban is Asinine, and also brings up the fact that the last time we see her in the Slave Leia outfit is when Leia herself kills Jabba with the chain and takes it off. |
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Dec 31, 2015 9:29:23 GMT -5
Sorry Georgie Boy...but selling Star Wars to those "white slavers" was the smartest decision you've made concerning the franchise in decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Dec 31, 2015 9:36:43 GMT -5
The people complaining about Episode 7 being similar to Episode 4. Are they aware Episode 4 itself follows the standards of the classic hero's journey which countless stories are based on? It's not like Episode 4's basic structure and plot was anything innovative. It particularly adhered to a Campbell style heroic formula, the same way Flash Gordon, Force Awakens and Guardians Of The Galaxy did. But any casual dude or dudette on the street, regardless if they're a film buff or have a wide range of knowledge regarding literature, can clearly see all those stories have countless different aspects, themes and details that give each of them their own identity. The only thing those three movies have in common is them being big stakes adventures in outer space. I enjoy all three, but I also can't say I love them for the same reasons. True originality in writing often comes from the author taking elements of various stories they enjoyed and mixing them together to create something different. And just about every popular franchise is no exception. |
|
|
|
Post by WoodStoner1 on Dec 31, 2015 9:44:16 GMT -5
Yes George, we clearly needed more sand soliloquies and WACKY CGI comedians!
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 31, 2015 13:08:31 GMT -5
Yeah, context is important. If a woman wants to cosplay slave bikini Leia, that's her prerogative, and can be an empowering thing for her to do; in the context of the actual movie itself it was pretty fan-service-y. If somebody wants to cosplay it, fine; if Disney doesn't really want to go back to it or promote it, fine. On the topic of Lucas' feelings, I think I've seen that take shape a bit in the last week as the "we need an article criticizing Star Wars" orders have come down from editors to writing staffs. The general critique has been "the prequels weren't good, but they were at least ambitious, while the new one is good, but more creatively lazy." I mean, in a way I understand what they're saying; by being in large part a call back to the original, TFA doesn't blaze a trail the way the originals did (nor draw on as much older material, since its source material IS the original Star Wars), nor does it make an attempt to be something very different the way the prequels did. But the article I keep coming back to is one Matt Yglesias wrote for Vox.com - he made the point that we really can't gauge TFA on its own beyond our own personal enjoyment levels of it until we see what happens in Episodes VIII and IX. Once we see those, we'll see TFA as part of a larger story, and we'll know for certain if its "retro" styling worked well in that larger context, if the filmmakers involved decide to go in a bold and daring direction with things, or if they're going to sit back and just bank on what works to appease the audience. I have a feeling they're going to do something both with the final two, but as an overall perspective I can appreciate that. To your last point, it reminds me of something that Whedon said about the process of making Age of Ultron: that these sequels that serve to share and expand a universe, each installment becomes more and more like television, in which the narrative is serialized (tune in next time!) at the expense of stand-alone stories. Or, that these stories no longer have any ending whatsoever, and have to exist in perpetuity, so there are only additions to the story, not new stories altogether. So if the comparison holds, especially underneath the Disney umbrella of mega-properties, why is it surprising that one of these sequel-franchise-universe-building films, like the new Star Wars, wouldn't feel like a rerun? If movies have become like television, at some point in time it's bound to happen, in a way that's a lot more apparent than when people complain about the Marvel movies being formulaic. And perhaps the problem is intensified with the TFA example: because A New Hope certainly had references--westerns, Saturday serials, Flash Gordon adventures, Japanese cinema--but it synthesized those ideas into something new, or, less charitably, it presented those references in a new way. TFA's sole point of reference is, seemingly, other Star Wars movies. In a galaxy far, far away and a long time ago, you can tell any story imaginable, and you're guaranteed to make money. So why do fans have to wait until the next movie to get 'the real story', the 'new story'? Just tell it now. And Disney already has the benefit of the doubt because Lucas isn't involved in the creative process anymore. Then again, perhaps it is asking too much of a company like Disney to present something new and imaginative when it's easier to buy IPs and repackage them. It's a fair point; I could see somebody feeling that TFA may have felt a bit caught between being a standalone story and being part of a larger, sprawling episodic story. At the end of the day I'm glad I can say "I saw a new Star Wars movie and genuinely enjoyed it", but I do hate having that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that we could be headed down a "Marvel style" hole with it unless they really go for something bolder in the next two movies (which I have faith that they will, given the talent involved). No, I don't hate Marvel movies at all, but I admit that I do kind of tire of the formula a bit quickly and try to limit my intake a bit to the ones that really nail it well. |
|
|
|
Post by Hakumental on Dec 31, 2015 14:33:12 GMT -5
 32 years after Jabba and people are still silly enough to pick fights with Princess Leia. |
|
