Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Palum_sl said:

Eh I... I wish they didn't show some of that dialogue. "All teams give it everything you got!" just sounds retarded. The originals sort of made it like they were professional military fighter pilots instead of dudebros in spaceships.

Click to expand...

The line is a bit hokey, but only some of the Rebel pilots were Imperial Academy defectors. The rest of them were just good pilots from Rim Systems, etc. I always imagined more of them were like Luke (pilot wise, not jedi wise, obviously) and Han than Biggs and Wedge.

Barraco Bisi_sl said:

Click to expand...

lol
But, unfortunately, i can't give you a Tuco

Angerz_sl said:

The line is a bit hokey, but only some of the Rebel pilots were Imperial Academy defectors. The rest of them were just good pilots from Rim Systems, etc. I always imagined more of them were like Luke (pilot wise, not jedi wise, obviously) and Han than Biggs and Wedge.

Click to expand...

Han was in the imperial navy. Hence his striped pants.

Xevy_sl said:

Han was in the imperial navy. Hence his striped pants.

Click to expand...

I thought those were Corellian Bloodstripes...and had nothing to do with the Imperial Navy

So are we assuming that is Snoke talking in the trailer with the "there has been an awakening"?

Starwars underground seems dead set on that he is supposed to be Darth Plaguies.

zzeris_sl said:

I disagree that movies are defined by the story. Sure, with critics, but spectacle is still what sells the movie. Avatar? Basic movie story with lots of cool spectacle. Titanic? All spectacle. That story is basic as hell. Hit the basic tried and true, add in spectacle and make money. As awesome as the stories of Inception and the Matrix were, it was the spectacle that brought in the money. I can keep going with Jurassic World, etc, etc, etc. The goal is to have a story that makes some sense, is adequately penned, and adds tons of spectacle. Movies are the visual spectacle and books are for stories that can be more easily fleshed out.

Click to expand...

I should have expounded--I think movies are defined by the mosteffectivestory, along with a high baseline of spectacle. For example, you brought up one; Avatar. Very, very basic new-world, hero's journey story--been told a million times, from Pochantos to Dances. Or, because Cameron is so good at it, Titanic. Romeo and Juliet, been told a million times, the story telling practices are allwell defined. And so while you're right those movies had very simplistic stories, they were very effective and well executed in the film, and thus didn't get in the way of us enjoying the spectacle.

But yeah, spectacle is what brings in the money, it always has; but what we define as a "great" or memorable film has spectacle+very effective story telling...It doesn't have to be great story telling, but simply clear, concise, easily to follow story telling (Stories that are easy to enjoy and won't have you questioning the spectacle on the screen.)

So, Transformers can make money with spectacle. But it will never been considered a great movie because it didn't execute the story well (Often times the "story" got in the way and felt clumsy). Meanwhile, Titanic's story isevery bit as simple as Transformers, but it was executed cleanly, and by the book; it didn't take away from the spectacle. I think, for the most part, that is what audiences look for in order to make a movie memorable. Not that the story is good enough to leave them thinking "wow that's a great story" (Shit doesn't have to be Godfather), but rather than the story is clean and effective and concise enough to NOT leave them thinking "you know the X or Y visual in the movie was cool, but why did A or B happen, it makes no sense." So in that way, stories, at least in my opinion, are the defining factor of what turns a movie from a block buster, into a "good/great" film. (Mad Max is probably the best recent example of this.)

But meh, just my opinion. As you said, Lucas' issue was that he let his desire for a "great" story get in the way. He'd have done much better with a simpler, more effective story and played to his strengths...Because he was never going to achieve that "great and complex" story telling that he wanted, and because he wasn't good enough to push it to there--his story could only hamper what he was trying to show off on screen (IE his completely digital sets--which, imo, the technology wasn't even close to ready to do at the time anyway.)

Miguex_sl said:

I've seen quite a few "official" articles that say that voice is Snoke, yes. One I read said that Snoke is a new character to the Star Wars universe, it might have been a JJ quote, I'll see if I can dig it up. I don't believe he is Plageus, that would contradict Palpatines statement that he was slain by his apprentice in his sleep. He wasn't immortal, he had just found a way to prolong life.

Click to expand...

JJ also said John Harrison definitely wasn't Khan.

Still think prequels were some shameless plug.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjeffe...1649856_405932

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but how come when jedi come back as ghosts they look the way they did right before they died, but Vader looks 20 years younger?

If you accept that vader killed anakin, then he is coming back when he was killed.

He came back with arms and legs in the first version

Ambiturner_sl said:

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but how come when jedi come back as ghosts they look the way they did right before they died, but Vader looks 20 years younger?

Click to expand...

Probably can just come back how you want to look. That or it's just something you shouldn't think too hard about.

Sterling_sl said:

Probably can just come back how you want to look. That or it's just something you shouldn't think too hard about.

Click to expand...

Because George Lucas

Ambiturner_sl said:

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but how come when jedi come back as ghosts they look the way they did right before they died, but Vader looks 20 years younger?

Click to expand...

You come back as the version of yourself that Luke would have no fucking clue who it was

I don't think Lucas had an overly complex story to tell in the prequels. I don't think he really had a story to tell in the first place with them. I think his motivation in making them was to hit the reset button on special effects in movie making again like he did in the 70's. The industry had passed so far beyond the things they did in the originals that no one in Hollywood really thought of them as great or even good anymore, just great for their time. The prequels were just an exclamation of "Don't you know who I am !?". So he cobbled together a crappy story to glom all of those visuals onto.

He didn't get someone with actual skill at storytelling to write it for him because he wanted zero constraints of any kind filtering out any of his ideas for visuals. He didn't even let the originals constrain him. The inconsistencies he created within the originals because of this are one of those minor things that really annoyed me more than it should have. Things like Ben telling Luke he hadn't gone by the name Obi-Wan since before he was born.

Well, he's said he was motivated by samurai movies and Joseph Campbell's book "The Power of Myth" to make a modern fairy tale for kids growing up today without the classic ones being relevant. Then again, Lucas could very well be full of shit.