Forums - Movies Discussion - George Lucas Was Right About the Star Wars Fanbase

People in forums keep saying The Force Awakens is bad which is totally ridiculous, TFA was a spectacularly well done movie with some very obvious flaws in the script, but it was never bad at all, I work in cinema and pretty much all people in the medium I know were very happy of how well the movie was executed and if you look around the vast majority of people and critics thinks is a pretty good movie:

Metacritic: 81
IMDB: 8.1 Among +700.000 votes
Rottentomatoes: 93% on the tomatometer| critic score: 8.2| User score: 8.6 among 220k votes

But the kind of people that thinks they know somethingh about cinema when they clearly don't keep saying that the film is poo, that it was horrible, that it was a disaster... full nonsense if you ask me, but oh well, worse for them.

Last edited by Goodnightmoon - on 18 December 2017

Around the Network
Goodnightmoon said:
mZuzek said:
This is true of fans of anything, really - I've experienced it first hand with GotG Vol. 2, a movie that expanded on so much and was so awesome and better than the original in so many ways, yet because it was different people disliked it.

Except that's completely false, GotG Vol2 is clearly inferior to the first one, is just how it is. And I don't think people disliked it at all, they just liked it less.

Oh I'm sorry Mr. Right Opinion, I swear I didn't mean any harm.

 

(ugh...)

You say you work in cinema though, so that explains a lot. I feel most of the people who do don't really value artistic direction too much. You say everyone in the medium thinks TFA was "well executed", and that's exactly the point - I think most people can agree TFA was well "executed", but it was terrible from an artistic point of view. No creativity, no vision, it felt like a simple rehash made for a few (billion) simple bucks.

Same can be said about GotG Vol. 2, I think. If you go into it looking for flaws and looking for the moment where the script fails or slows down, of course it'll be worse than the first one, because it really does do that. I do think in that sense it's a more "flawed" movie than the first (though I still disagree, I think the first movie's pacing is actually far worse, because it constantly drops these stupid Ronan scenes all the time when you just couldn't care less about him), but artistically there's so much more value to it. It feels a lot more genuine, it feels far more different from at least other Marvel movies (whereas the first one was pretty much Space Avengers with +4 charm), the characters are developed much deeper and it has an actually very satisfying, and emotional, conclusion to the story, unlike the first one which was just kinda done.



mZuzek said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Except that's completely false, GotG Vol2 is clearly inferior to the first one, is just how it is. And I don't think people disliked it at all, they just liked it less.

Oh I'm sorry Mr. Right Opinion, I swear I didn't mean any harm.

 

(ugh...)

You say you work in cinema though, so that explains a lot. I feel most of the people who do don't really value artistic direction too much. You say everyone in the medium thinks TFA was "well executed", and that's exactly the point - I think most people can agree TFA was well "executed", but it was terrible from an artistic point of view. No creativity, no vision, it felt like a simple rehash made for a few (billion) simple bucks.

Same can be said about GotG Vol. 2, I think. If you go into it looking for flaws and looking for the moment where the script fails or slows down, of course it'll be worse than the first one, because it really does do that. I do think in that sense it's a more "flawed" movie than the first (though I still disagree, I think the first movie's pacing is actually far worse, because it constantly drops these stupid Ronan scenes all the time when you just couldn't care less about him), but artistically there's so much more value to it. It feels a lot more genuine, it feels far more different from at least other Marvel movies (whereas the first one was pretty much Space Avengers with +4 charm), the characters are developed much deeper and it has an actually very satisfying, and emotional, conclusion to the story, unlike the first one which was just kinda done.

Are you really trying to say GoTG Vol2 is an artistic movie? Because that's really laughable for a movie that's basically the equivalent of a rollercoaster. And even worse, are you suggesting I don't see the artistic value in movies? You? The guy that thinks GoTG Vol 2 is one of the best movie ever made? My favourite directors include people like Lars Von trier, Igman Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, Spike Jonze, Wong Kar Wai, Zhang Yimou, Michael Haneke, Pedro Almodovar, David Lynch and a long etc, don't you think those guys are artistic and creative enough? The kind of cinema I have always liked is highly artistic, so i really don't know where are you getting that from, in fact you probably haven't seen a single movie of any of those directors, how are you suposed to know what kind of movie has any artistic value to beging with?

Gotg vol 2 is not bad executed from a technical pov is just way dumber than the first one, way more unbalanced and too excesive, at certain points feels like a parody of the franchise, it is still overall a good enternainment but it doesn't reach the impression that the first one left at all, a movie that was very refreshing as a blockbuster to spend the time with friends and eat some popcorns, GoTG is not exactly high level cinema from an artistic pov is just good cinema for evasion, a good spectacle for sure but it barely has any strong artistic value to beging, its pure and simple entertainment and vol 2 is just not as satisfactory in that regard as the first one.

Last edited by Goodnightmoon - on 18 December 2017

Goodnightmoon said:

Gotg vol 2 is not bad executed from a technical pov, is just way dumber than the first, way more unbalanced and too excesive, sometimes feels like a parody of the franchise, it is still overall a good enternainment but it doesn't reach the impression that the first one left at all, a movie that was very refreshing as a blockbuster to spend the time with friends and eat some popcorns, but that's it, if you believe GoTG is high cinema you are really clueless, is good cinema for evasion, a great spectacle for sure but it barely has any strong artistic value to beging with, its pure and simple entertainment and vol 2 is just not as satisfactory in that regard as the first one.

See, this is exactly why you don't like the second one - because it's not as "entertaining" or "evasive". It's a movie that takes stuff deeper, and as such you just got bored because in your conceited mind you simply can't accept that this popcorn spectacle movie might have any genuity to it.

I don't care who the hell your favorite directors are or what constitutes as "high cinema". If "high cinema" is what people like you call themselves to pretend your opinion is any better, if "high cinema" is whatever bullshit goes on at the oscars when no higher budget movies are ever even nominated for anything, if "high cinema" is disregarding other people's opinions... I honestly couldn't care less about it.

You know, as much as you might not believe it (and I'm sure you're even going to try and tell me it isn't true and I'm wrong), Guardians of the Galaxy actually has a writer/director who is passionate as hell about his work and has remained very true to his roots. But nah, it's a Marvel movie so it's just stupid dumb popcorn fun. There's a raccoon and a talking tree , so it can't possibly have any real character development, and if they wanna pretend it has, then it's just bad.

I never even said you don't give a shit about artistic direction. I said people in the movie industry seem to value it considerably less than execution though, and my point stands. Watch the Star Wars prequels, then watch The Force Awakens - if you tell me Force Awakens has more creativity I'm sorry but you're just completely out of your mind. It might be the better movie technically, but there's no inventiveness to it at all, and personally especially when it comes to Star Wars (because it's a very genuine, one-person artistic vision) I do value that a lot.



MTZehvor said:
JWeinCom said: 

If these are your ideas of plotholes, then you're misusing the term.  Perhaps you'd like these things explained more in depth, and if that's the kind of storytelling you prefer, then that's fine.  But nothing about any of this (except maybe #1) actually doesn't make sense or go against any of the world's rules.

Then let me address this before going back to tackle the actual points, because I really don't think I'm misusing the term at all.

To quote Wikipedia (which admittedly isn't perfect but I think this definition is reasonable): A plothole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. I would also add onto that things that contradict plain, common sense, but I suppose you're welcome to dispute that addition.

Now, you can argue whether my arguments are right or not, but if you do accept that my argumentation is correct, then I don't see any way that you cannot consider these plot holes. If Snoke's origins make no sense given the lore that was built up in the prequels, that is an event that contradicts earlier statements in the Star Wars storyline. If the force acts inconsistently compared with previous films, that is a plothole, because it contradicts how the force is shown to work previously. Etc. etc.

To the other points:

1) I feel like this is a pretty significant stretch, especially if Leia is unconscious. Admittedly what the force allows its users to do is so vaguely defined that it's hard to say what is or isn't feasible, but I think you'd see more usage of that in the series. A field that entirely negates the vacuum of space would have to be pretty strong, and it seems like it would have been used before.

2) I guess I missed that explanation, but it just backs the plot issue up to a previous point, i.e. Snoke's origin. But more on that in Point 5.

3) Given that not five minutes earlier a Resistance fighter crashed her ship into a friendly ship to stop him from taking out an enemy cannon, and only an hour ago had two coups back to back, I don't think the kindergarden label is inaccurate. And, again, why take the chance? The resistance is scared, many of their members are clearly not thinking very straight, and they're backed into a corner. They're probably not in the best state of mind. Why would you assume that they would be thinking logically when you can just, with a single sentence, ensure that they get what you're doing?

And the idea of Luke just acting erratically is a poor excuse at best. If he was capable of formulating a plan like that and having a last, meaningful conversation with his sister, I think his mental condition was intact enough to simply say "Hey I'm stalling them, make a run for it."

#4: Maybe I missed this, but...when was it mentioned that Qui-Gon developed the technique? At the end of Episode 3, Yoda talks about communicating with the dead, but that doesn't seem like the same thing. And, on top of that, it brings up another issue...

#5: If Snoke wields this long-distance communication power which, according to you, was exclusive to Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Yoda, then where did he get it? 

The knowledge of the Jedi and Force was pretty much reduced to myth status, if A New Hope is anything to go by. Han disregards it as superstition when he first meets Luke and Obi-Wan.

As for other individuals, granted, there are plenty of force sensitive people. But Snoke, even if he isn't explicitly stated to be a Sith, is very much skilled with the dark side of the force. That takes training, and there aren't exactly a ton of people who are offering lessons in force wielding out there.

Again, why this all matters is the stakes that the universe operates by. If your universe is filled with gaping plotholes, then it's just inconsistent. To quote my previous post: "The less consistent your universe is in operating within the parameters it sets for itself, the less believable it becomes. And the less believable it becomes, the less reason I have to care about any of the stakes in these movies. If these all powerful force beings can just spring up out of seemingly nowhere, why should I care at all about what happens to Rey or Kylo? Who's to say that another highly skilled force wielder that we've never heard of and is only appearing now for some reason won't just suddenly pop up to save/destroy the galaxy next? Who's to say that there isn't some other force sensitive kid who will pop up out of nowhere to save the galaxy? When you discard the rules that you set forth for yourself, your universe becomes an utterly arbitrary place where anything can happen for the sake of whatever plot device seems coolest to the director."

1.  Again, without seeing the scene again, I can't really comment much further.  It depends how long she was out, and I'd still have to double check to see if it was her or Kylo doing it.

2.  It was very explicitly stated.  

3.  I think it was made clear that Finn's plan was not going to work.  I'd also have to watch this scene again, but it didn't seem like he would have made it there, as his ship was already melting on the way.  I'd have to see the scene again, but I'm fairly sure the implication was that he was playing hero for the sake of playing hero, and Rose saves him from an ultimately doomed plan.  

As you point out, Luke had a meaningful conversation with his sister.  And what did he say in that conversation?  He said, "nobody is ever gone" (or something to that effect) before giving her Han's dice.  The implication is obviously that people live on in our memories.  Why give her them at that moment?  Obviously, to let Leia know that he doesn't plan on making out alive.  It's a more subtle, more aesthetic, and more memorable way to express his plan.  

Leia knows Luke doesn't intend to make it out alive.  So, what exactly would she have done?  Luke can trust that Leia has common sense and is going to figure leave.  And also, let's keep in mind, that Leia is literally the only person there who Luke knows and is the leader of the resistance.  It would be weird for him to strike up conversations with a bunch of new folks.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have made more sense to say his plan explicitly, because it would have.  It would have also been far less interesting.  What was done still falls well within the realm of suspension of disbelief.

4.  In the end of episode three, after Yoda says this, I'm 99% sure Obi Wan name drops Qui Gon.  But, whether he does or not, it's clear what they're talking about.  It's the very end of the prequels, so there's not going to be any payoff in that series, which means they're referring to something from the originals.   Since the force apparitions are the only thing we see that relates to communing with the dead, that must be what they're talking about. 

5.  I never said that was exclusive to them.  Neither Anakin, Yoda, or Obi Wan seemed to have the ability to communicate directly over a distance, aside from being dead.

Where does he get the ability?  By practicing I guess.  I'm not sure what you're expecting here.  Are you looking for something like Naruto, where they introduce a new technique, and then have a 20 minute flashback for making of the technique?  Like, a scene of him meditating and practicing telepathy? If that's the kind of storytelling you prefer fine, but that doesn't make this a plothole.  If we did it that way, they'd never be able to introduce any new kinds of force techniques, like force lightning, in Episode VI which was also introduced suddenly and surprisingly.  We haven't seen every potential force ability yet, and only a few that involve the dark side. 

We also don't know that other people can't do this.  It's not a particularly useful technique.  They already have the technology to communicate over long distance which is far simpler.  It's only used here because the Emperor is using it to draw Rey to him, and because Rey and Kylo have a special connection.  But it's not like a replacement for cell phones. 

Jedi being a myth makes about as much sense as the 1960s being a myth to us.  Luke was born at the end of the Clone Wars, and he's in his mid 20s by the end of ROTJ.  There have been 30 years in the interim, so we're at most 60 years removed from the Jedi order being a pretty big thing in the galaxy.

  At the beginning of a New Hope, there are people alive who have seen and interacted with Jedi.  Leia's father is one, and Jabba is another.  And when Jabba coins the term "Jedi mind trick", no body seems to doubt Jedis are an actual thing.  In Rogue one we see that there is a whole sect of monk like people who know of and use the force. A random smuggled may not know,  but the even if there was a concerted effort from the Republic to stifle knowledge of the Jedi, it would have been nearly impossible to do so. 

It's never stated, but Snoke's design definitely conveys age.  He was quite likely alive during the Clone Wars.  It's not unlikely at all that he'd have access to information regarding the force.

 

 

You repeated yourself again, but these still aren't plotholes.  Some of these things actually were clearly explained but you missed the explanation.  The one you keep coming back to is Snoke, but that's based on the faulty assumption that in a galaxy of millions, there can only be two people utilizing the dark side of the force, but that is never stated.  It in fact seems highly unlikely that in a galaxy of at least millions (presumably trillions) there would be only two people.



Around the Network
mZuzek said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Gotg vol 2 is not bad executed from a technical pov, is just way dumber than the first, way more unbalanced and too excesive, sometimes feels like a parody of the franchise, it is still overall a good enternainment but it doesn't reach the impression that the first one left at all, a movie that was very refreshing as a blockbuster to spend the time with friends and eat some popcorns, but that's it, if you believe GoTG is high cinema you are really clueless, is good cinema for evasion, a great spectacle for sure but it barely has any strong artistic value to beging with, its pure and simple entertainment and vol 2 is just not as satisfactory in that regard as the first one.

See, this is exactly why you don't like the second one - because it's not as "entertaining" or "evasive". It's a movie that takes stuff deeper, and as such you just got bored because in your conceited mind you simply can't accept that this popcorn spectacle movie might have any genuity to it.

I don't care who the hell your favorite directors are or what constitutes as "high cinema". If "high cinema" is what people like you call themselves to pretend your opinion is any better, if "high cinema" is whatever bullshit goes on at the oscars when no higher budget movies are ever even nominated for anything, if "high cinema" is disregarding other people's opinions... I honestly couldn't care less about it.

You know, as much as you might not believe it (and I'm sure you're even going to try and tell me it isn't true and I'm wrong), Guardians of the Galaxy actually has a writer/director who is passionate as hell about his work and has remained very true to his roots. But nah, it's a Marvel movie so it's just stupid dumb popcorn fun. There's a raccoon and a talking tree , so it can't possibly have any real character development, and if they wanna pretend it has, then it's just bad.

I never even said you don't give a shit about artistic direction. I said people in the movie industry seem to value it considerably less than execution though, and my point stands. Watch the Star Wars prequels, then watch The Force Awakens - if you tell me Force Awakens has more creativity I'm sorry but you're just completely out of your mind. It might be the better movie technically, but there's no inventiveness to it at all, and personally especially when it comes to Star Wars (because it's a very genuine, one-person artistic vision) I do value that a lot.

What exactly was inventive about the prequels?  They vary more from the original trilogy than TFA did, but in terms of overall storytelling, I don't see much going on that was all that novel.  



mZuzek said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Gotg vol 2 is not bad executed from a technical pov, is just way dumber than the first, way more unbalanced and too excesive, sometimes feels like a parody of the franchise, it is still overall a good enternainment but it doesn't reach the impression that the first one left at all, a movie that was very refreshing as a blockbuster to spend the time with friends and eat some popcorns, but that's it, if you believe GoTG is high cinema you are really clueless, is good cinema for evasion, a great spectacle for sure but it barely has any strong artistic value to beging with, its pure and simple entertainment and vol 2 is just not as satisfactory in that regard as the first one.

See, this is exactly why you don't like the second one - because it's not as "entertaining" or "evasive". It's a movie that takes stuff deeper, and as such you just got bored because in your conceited mind you simply can't accept that this popcorn spectacle movie might have any genuity to it.

I don't care who the hell your favorite directors are or what constitutes as "high cinema". If "high cinema" is what people like you call themselves to pretend your opinion is any better, if "high cinema" is whatever bullshit goes on at the oscars when no higher budget movies are ever even nominated for anything, if "high cinema" is disregarding other people's opinions... I honestly couldn't care less about it.

You know, as much as you might not believe it (and I'm sure you're even going to try and tell me it isn't true and I'm wrong), Guardians of the Galaxy actually has a writer/director who is passionate as hell about his work and has remained very true to his roots. But nah, it's a Marvel movie so it's just stupid dumb popcorn fun. There's a raccoon and a talking tree , so it can't possibly have any real character development, and if they wanna pretend it has, then it's just bad.

I never even said you don't give a shit about artistic direction. I said people in the movie industry seem to value it considerably less than execution though, and my point stands. Watch the Star Wars prequels, then watch The Force Awakens - if you tell me Force Awakens has more creativity I'm sorry but you're just completely out of your mind. It might be the better movie technically, but there's no inventiveness to it at all, and personally especially when it comes to Star Wars (because it's a very genuine, one-person artistic vision) I do value that a lot.

Dude, people that works in cinema value the artistic side of movies way more than you do but some movies are made to be deep, artistic or/and emotionally complex and some movies are made only to be a fun and well crafted spectacle, some movies manage to mix both things sure, but Guardians of the Galaxy never pretended to be that kind of movie to beging with, is not an emotionally complex movie, is not a thought provoking movie, is not a very smart movie either and it isn't any cinematographic achievement by any means, is just a nice spectacle (full of CGI everywhere) with very charismatic characters, a refreshing style (for its genre) and a cool aesthetic, but since the only kind of movie you watch are this kind of huge blockbusters made to be just pure entertainment and to be liked by the masses you simply don't know better and believe GoTG is the best of the best, is like the kid that only listents to the pop hits on the radio and thinks Britney Spears is the best and most complex artist on Earth.

When you talk about creativity you are only talking about the story of the movie, you get to the conclusion that Star Wars 1-2-3 are better than 7 just because the story does add more things to the lore, but you are missing the point completely, if you have creative lyrics for a song but then the music is horrible then is just a shitty song, Episode 1 and 2 are painful to watch to anyone that loves cinema, its hard to take care for the story when everything around it its so damn bad and the story itself is not really well writted to beging with at all, on the other hand episode 7 is like a song with not very inspired lyrics that we have heard before but the music around it is pretty awesome, and since the most important thing in music is.... well.... music, is a way better song than the other, you are making a similar mistake that makes the people that believes the quality of videogames are measure by the quality of their stories, that people really don't understand what gaming is about and I'm afraid you are in a similar position when it comes to cinema.

Last edited by Goodnightmoon - on 19 December 2017

Pavolink said:
I love how George is sarcastic.
Basically laughing at those screaming shit at his job and now they get real shit with the new trilogy.

to be fair, I feel all 3 of the Disney SW are better than the prequels...

 

TFA had balance, it appealed to the older fans due to all the damn nostalgia and the newer fans because it was a clean, efficient movie that was a lot of fun.

 

R1 was more popular with core fans because it added a lot of lore and expanded on one of their beloved films.

TLJ is mixed to core fans because it breaks some "Star Wars Rules" but casual fans love it because it is interest and keeps them guessing. 

 

 

 

 



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

George Lucas doesn't understand the SW fanbase since Episode I.



Goodnightmoon said:

the only kind of movie you watch are this kind of huge blockbusters made to be liked by the masses you simply don't know better

Oh okay so we're just jumping to conclusions now, alright.

Look dude, I've seen many different kinds of movies over the life. I mostly watch blockbusters, yeah, but I've also seen lots of animated (and anime) films, smaller indie movies, and foreign movies from many different places. Some of my favorite movies are Empire Strikes Back (huge blockbuster), Rango (rather forgotten animation) and Inglorious Basterds (semi-indie I guess), and I don't care what the hell you think of those.

I don't think Star Wars 1/2/3 are better than The Force Awakens, but for the most part I personally do enjoy them more because I get more invested in the worlds and the ideas they bring to the table, and can get behind those even if the execution is mostly terrible - I can always go back to watch those and be amazed at the creations they and only they brought to the world of Star Wars, whereas if I'm gonna watch TFA I'd rather just go back to ANH for really obvious reasons.

Also, I'd hardly say TFA was greatly executed either. The script is fine I guess, and the acting is fine too, but they don't get a lot farther than that. There's absolutely no reason to be invested in any of the characters when they're a random ex-stormtrooper who turns out to be a super generic black dude stereotype and a super amazing rebel pilot who is super awesome and happy and nice and handsome (and they both become BFF's in like 2 seconds despite being in opposing factions and all), and a Mary Sue who can pretty much instantly solve any problem ever - which, you know, doesn't do a whole lot for the plot when it's ever so clear she's just always going to come out on top of everything. And there were also a few terribly written/performed moments in the movie, like the cringy debate between Finn and Rey at Maz Kanata's place (sorry, but "come away with me" just never works) or the absolutely awful discussion between Han and Leia about Luke and Kylo and whatever the Emperor 2.0's name was.

...and if you think Britney Spears is what terrible music's like, you really don't understand a thing. See, there is this thing called industry (pretty sure Britney Spears is a part of it), and the way it works is, they take successful formulas and repeat them, in a way they know it'll never come off too bad. If ever they have an issue or think something isn't good enough, they'll settle it around a committee of experienced writers and investors and all that stuff to decide what's best for the business. You know what else sounds a lot like this? The Force Awakens. A movie that is perfectly fine and watchable, but devoid of any creativity.

In fact, usually the worst music, as well as the worst anything, comes from genuine artistic works, because that's where one person might be dragged too far into their own vision to understand their mistakes or they try to experiment so far out there that inevitably their work just becomes an incomprehensible mess. That sounds a lot like the Star Wars prequels, actually - but it's just the nature of playing safe vs. taking risks. One will always have mild success or failure, whereas the other is bound to a much wider range of effectiveness.

If you really think GotG Vol. 2 has no emotion I really just recommend watching this video (and knowing you, inevitably disregard anything it says). I'm sure this movie probably didn't do anything for you, and that's fine, because it's you know, your taste dude. But personally, having seen and enjoyed movies of all kinds I can say this movie evokes stronger feelings in me than anything else in art, not just movies, by a mile.

Edit: also, I'm going to sleep now (thankfully), so, bye.