Star Wars 7 shit talk

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5218 of them)

in the spirit of jar-jar-free edits of the prequels, i'd kinda like to see a cut of this that purges all the really really on the nose jokey references like the trash compactor line. it would be pointless in that the entire thing is a recycle job and the thematic echoes are all over everything, but that was the stuff that really, really took me out of the movie. i enjoyed it overall but i feel like those things are only gonna wear worse on repeat viewings and i wonder how fondly i'll think of this film in future years. like will i mostly remember it as the exciting story with a couple of living breathing new characters that i like a lot, or as this hokey in-jokey fanfic thing?

in the theater i laughed aloud at the revelation of the new death planet, like okay, you're going all the way on this, my hat is off to you sirs. but mannnn would it be a better movie if it were not saddled with cutting away to the tension-free and no-character-stakes CGI bombing run with pilot guy plus schmoes. they actually don't need the death planet at all for the main story that's going on about our heroes, and it sort of screws up our sense of how powerful or well-developed this new villain organization is. the other worst element is the CGI supreme chancellor snoke, which i think we're all tolerating only because we assume it'll eventually turn out that it's a wizard-of-oz thing and he doesn't actually look like a CGI school graduating project for a Generic Monster Guy. if that turns out not to be the case the movie's gonna start to feel kinda thin and empty and video-game-ish.

and yet, i'm still weirdly tempted to go see it again while it's still clinging to a couple of theater time slots. huh.

never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Monday, 4 April 2016 04:32 (eight years ago) link

And with all that agreed, it looked and felt like star wars,which is enough

Ecomigrant gnomics (darraghmac), Monday, 4 April 2016 07:42 (eight years ago) link

Also it was funny and exciting and wore its updates well - the original story of Star Wars wasn't exactly a mould-breaker.

Andrew Farrell, Monday, 4 April 2016 08:58 (eight years ago) link

congrats amateurist on successfully rehashing the most boring criticisms of this movie for our reading pleasure

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 4 April 2016 09:45 (eight years ago) link

xpost Yeah, how dare you not read all 948,123,109 prior posts about this movie. What the hell.

I am very inteligent and dicipline boy (Old Lunch), Monday, 4 April 2016 12:07 (eight years ago) link

Hahaha loony Frenchie dog

Darkest Cosmologist junk (kingfish), Monday, 4 April 2016 16:17 (eight years ago) link

congrats amateurist on successfully rehashing the most boring criticisms of this movie for our reading pleasure

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, April 4, 2016 4:45 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sorry, man. yeah, i haven't read much about it before i saw it. i never pretended to have some amazingly original hot take. just my $0.02. would you like your money back?

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 20:14 (eight years ago) link

oh wait, you didn't pay anything for it. you didn't even have to read it. or comment on it.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 20:15 (eight years ago) link

We had a different "spoilers okay" thread for the movie, I think any plot-related discussion is better suited there:

Star Wars 7 Spoilers Thread: This SPOIL bath is going to feel so good.

Tuomas, Monday, 4 April 2016 20:16 (eight years ago) link

xpost

i dunno why i even come on ILX anymore, the typical routine is this:

1) i post a few things
2) someone either makes a pointlessly snarky response or just outright insults me in some fashion that has nothing to do with what's under discussion
3) i get a bad feeling, wonder why i bother, go off ILX for four or five days
4) after a while, get bored doing work, feel like chatting about something, post a few things
5) see #2, etc.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 20:21 (eight years ago) link

ILX just seems really toxic lately.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 20:22 (eight years ago) link

(and to clarify TH's post wasn't that bad, it's just a funny thing to see after not having posted for 18 hours or whatever. like, "geez, thanks.")

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 20:22 (eight years ago) link

'chatting' seems like an odd description of what just happened though - turn up on a thread, don't interact with it particularly (your last post was December 17, so you wouldn't have had to go very far forwards or back on your bookmark to reach Prime Hot Take), just dump "here's what I thought" without being curious as to whether anyone else might've already thought it..

Andrew Farrell, Monday, 4 April 2016 20:33 (eight years ago) link

sure, i didn't read through all 8,000 posts on this thread or however many there are. i also didn't pretend my observations were novel; indeed, i know that they've been made before. (precisely how many times i'm not sure, since i haven't been following all the discussion about this film too closely, mostly b/c i'm not a big Star Wars fan). just shared my thoughts.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 20:49 (eight years ago) link

yeah idgi really

Neanderthal, Monday, 4 April 2016 21:01 (eight years ago) link

sorry amst it's not even just this thread it's that these criticisms of ep vii are like the coin of the realm now, 'disappointingly recycles story beats from ep iv' might as well be engraved on the inside ring of the blu-ray at this point. i know you're a film teacher, and previous posts suggest you care enough about star wars to be upset at the absence of a definitive original version of ep iv so it's not too unreasonable to expect you'd have absorbed the usual critiques of the new one by now and be prepared to offer something new?

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:05 (eight years ago) link

i mean believe me or don't but i honestly was looking forward to what you'd have to say

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:07 (eight years ago) link

Xpost Yeah, who cares what or when people post? More the merrier. Redundant is in the eye of the beholder. It's the internet. It's free.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 4 April 2016 21:08 (eight years ago) link

i'm not a star wars specialist! i'm mostly interested in the 'original' version of the 1977 film to teach its visual effects.

i did like some aspects of the new film's style, and pointed that out.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:11 (eight years ago) link

Forgot this movie came out, tbh. Does it have cultural traction, or straight to the dustbin? Not a bad film, but wonder if kids will be watching it every weekend in DVD. Did it have any quotable lines?

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 4 April 2016 21:18 (eight years ago) link

everyone talked about the story being rehashed but i feel like this element wasn't remarked on enough, tho obv it was remarked on

somehow the way that abrams imitates the minutae of the original trilogy's visual style--down to using roughly the same lens lengths for certain types of shots--is impressive to me, in a "that's neat" kind of way

because it was deeply eerie imo, i'd never seen a movie before where almost every other shot i was invited to look at the structure of the shot itself or of an adjacent cut and go "oh, see, because" -- direct reference and repetition was in the movie's very mechanical bones, which on the one hand is impressive but on the other (or on the same?) felt uncanny and left me at a constant weird distance and i couldn't decide what if anything this said about me and/or the movie and/or fan culture in general

denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:24 (eight years ago) link

xpost are you kidding? half my wall is people quoting the new movie or Kylo Ren memes. it caught on

Neanderthal, Monday, 4 April 2016 21:27 (eight years ago) link

i know it's disingenuous to say "my kids didn't have a problem with the focal lengths" but, you know, my kids didn't have a problem with the focal lengths.

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:30 (eight years ago) link

as a film-style wonk i enjoyed the way that even the lens lengths were allusive! obviously abrams isn't doing this for the kids, but for (a) himself, (b) other filmmakers (i think the extent to which filmmakers are making stuff for their peers is underacknowledged) and (c) people who know the other star wars films forwards and backwards (which is a lot of people).

there's a scene where all the x-wing (?) fighters are racing to get to their planes, there's a fast tracking shot whose movement is counterpoint to the direction of most of the characters' movements and it uses a telephoto lens... i would swear (w/o having watched it in a few weeks) that this directly evokes a shot from the last act of the '77 "star wars."

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:35 (eight years ago) link

also i bet there's a lot of people who couldn't tell you the difference b/t a tracking shot and a steadicam shot, or a telephoto vs a fish-eye lens, but could tell you that one scene "looks like 'star wars'" and another sorta does not.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:37 (eight years ago) link

Xpost But isn't that Abrams' directorial m.o., though? Being an almost spot-on emulator of the stylistic tics of his own favorite filmmakers - or at least of 70s-80s Spielberg.
I rewatched VII at home last weekend and saw a lot of early Spielberg in the shots this time around (see the reactions outside Maz's castle after the weapon is put to use)

Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:37 (eight years ago) link

( that post is response to difficult listening's )

Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:39 (eight years ago) link

i like the idea of abrams as a chameleon. i haven't seen enough of his work to know! (the only of his movies i really liked was his mission:impossible installment.) but in any case being a stylistic chameleon is an impressive skill, if not a major one i guess.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:40 (eight years ago) link

I think he is doing it for the kids! If he isn't then he's one lucky sonovabitch, tumblr and actual (anecdotal) kids are nuts for it.

Andrew Farrell, Monday, 4 April 2016 21:40 (eight years ago) link

fwiw, this guy was the DP:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0591053/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr15

lots of action films under his belt, including work with Oliver Stone and Tony Scott

μpright mammal (mh), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:41 (eight years ago) link

xpost

i just meant he's probably thinking about tracer hand's kids when he discusses lenses w/ his DP

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:43 (eight years ago) link

Yeah - doesn't partic. bother me, either. I'm curious what Rian Johnson's going to be coming with visually.

Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:43 (eight years ago) link

I wondered before seeing The Force Awakens if the shot composition would be similar to his Star Trek reboot, but it's really its own thing and much more indebted to the first SW film and Spielberg! I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane over the weekend and the theater played a clip of Super 8 beforehand and I was reminded again what a love story to Spielberg's work in the 80s that was.

μpright mammal (mh), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:43 (eight years ago) link

i just meant he's probably thinking about tracer hand's kids when he discusses lenses w/ his DP

er, i mean probably NOT thinking...

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:44 (eight years ago) link

xpost

will be interesting to compare Super 8 to Jeff Nichols's Midnight Special which has a very 80s Spielberg look to it as well, at least going by the trailer

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:45 (eight years ago) link

interesting Rian Johnson is working with the guy who posted the film/digital juxtaposition video that was making the rounds a couple months back, a summary of which is here:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin

I think it's an interesting meditation: does digital have a "look" or is it just an artifact of the process and processing done to the raw footage? I think a lot of people played to the strengths (and weaknesses) of the physical media of film, but there's an entire visual vocabulary that's inherited from the medium and not a conscious decision on the director's part.

Shots taken in digital, especially with immediate replayability and camera flexibility may be something that can be spotted, but if processing results in a film-like look when it comes to color and lighting, is there a real difference?

μpright mammal (mh), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:49 (eight years ago) link

digital once (1990s?) had a look, now the tools you can use to manipulate the image are so advanced that you'd be hard-pressed to identify a single digital look.

as of just a few short years ago, even the highest-grade digital cameras had a hard time registering variances of light intensity in the same shot. i think that's much less true now, but aside from the qualities of film grain (which digital tools can only approximate), that's where you might locate the difference b/t digital and film. however, for all i know with the most advanced digital cameras even that's not true anymore.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:52 (eight years ago) link

Lucas embracing digital was seen as a degradation in visual style, but in my opinion the real sin was that he used it to cast off limitations that might have resulted in a tighter story. Instead of concentrating on composing a story with characters and fleshing out scenes, he had fully envisioned scenes that were visually busy completely unrelated to plot development

I think you could have an as-filmed Episode VII that would be missing backgrounds but would otherwise be a complete plot, but Episodes I - III ended up with a richly imagined world that had people doing nothing worthwhile in it

μpright mammal (mh), Monday, 4 April 2016 21:55 (eight years ago) link

the correspondence between cinematographer Steve Yedlin and others in the link I posted is kind of telling -- people referring to film and digital as "real" versus "simulated" makes no sense to me because neither is real! They're captured images of real life, replayed. The fact you're viewing both on the same movie screen or computer monitor kind of makes the point moot.

μpright mammal (mh), Monday, 4 April 2016 22:01 (eight years ago) link

fwiw lucas shot the first film in the prequel trilogy in 720p, i think. so it was a literal degradation, in a sense.

speaking of CGI, i think the humanoid characters in the new film still fell into the uncanny valley... i'd rather they just use puppets, or more of a mix of puppetry and CGI.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 22:01 (eight years ago) link

yes the CGI characters were the worst part of the movie other than the shameless rehashing

and to amateurist and anyone else who wants to comment on the rehashing: GO RIGHT AHEAD. the rehashing was lame as hell.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 4 April 2016 22:14 (eight years ago) link

something about the movements of the facial musculature in those CGI characters seems like it's in slow motion. muscles don't bend and twitch in an convincingly fleet way.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 22:22 (eight years ago) link

facial movements look to me like ripples in a pond, and figure movements often look like the characters are moving in a vat of molasses,. i think CGI still has a hard time replicating the /strain/ involved in muscle movement.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 4 April 2016 22:23 (eight years ago) link

i think the rehashing was mostly lame w/r/t the new death star but the rest of it didn't bother me much. i thought ridley and boyega were excellent enough to get past some of those issues, i guess. it's amazing how this has already infiltrated my 4 yr old's life, too, and i've only let him watch the trailers. which i don't necessarily think was happening as much with 4 yr olds around the time of phantom menace, maybe...

nomar, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 01:08 (eight years ago) link

Maz and Snoke were the weakest points of TFA's VFX work for me. I really wish they'd gone with puppets, even augmented with CGI. Digital characters obviously still very difficult to pull off.

It would be interesting to know which scenes in TPM were shot digitally. Had thought for years that it was shot entirely on film. I assumed the oddly muddy look of some scenes was a result of limitations in their compositing software, or a primitive digital intermediate.

Millsner, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 04:20 (eight years ago) link

prepare yourself

ONE SEQUENCE FROM THE PHANTOM MENACE — A NIGHTTIME SCENE IN WHICH QUI-GON TAKES A SAMPLE OF ANAKIN’S BLOOD — WAS SHOT IN DIGITAL, MAKING IT THE FIRST FILM OF THIS SCALE TO UTILIZE THE NEW FORMAT.

Number None, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 06:35 (eight years ago) link

Hm. Guess I'll stick with my first theory, then.

Millsner, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 11:07 (eight years ago) link

Xpost totally serious. I have kids and lots of friends with kids, and I haven't heard any of them talk about the movie since, not like they do the old films. If you're talking memes, yeah, I've seen a few, but don't know if that is a high bar. Will ask some parents and get back!

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 11:12 (eight years ago) link

when I got home from work yesterday, two neighbor kids were running down the sidewalk waving lightsabers

μpright mammal (mh), Tuesday, 5 April 2016 13:50 (eight years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.