Drowsy Emperor

I thought Hux' speech was good since it seemed pretty representative of its real-world counterpart. I mean look at "silly haters" giving speeches such as this and this. Do you think they sound unrealistically screeching? I am willing to bet anything that JJ gave directions for Domhnall Gleeson to imitate them. (I agree that the speeches I linked to seem full of "silly hate". But that's pretty much the way things are in reality with certain ideologies...) I don't know, man. If the good guys had all been white males, and the bad guys a woman, a black dude and a latinoish pilot, would that have been racist? I don't think so... Writing and delivering speeches is hard work. I also found Hux's speech embarrassing, unsurprising since it was written by some amateur with no experience in propaganda. The links you pasted are not a good example, Hitler was a very talented orator and many of his speeches are very well constructed. Its easy to disregard them now after years of use as an example of political hysteria (usually without a translation, which leaves people intimidated by the tone only), but for the time there were few better. But Hollywood would never do that would they? Anyway the same applies either way. Political correctness is oozing and obvious from the casting choices . While that in of itself isn't important, it is interesting that all the bad guys are white (delivering speeches in full futuristic nazi garb - even the principal colors of the flag are there as if the viewer is stupid enough not to notice all the allusions). Neither aspect is notable on its own, but when you look at the whole thing the cheesy politicking behind it all is rather obvious? Perhaps even automatic to the point that it doesn't actually require politicking. I don't particularly care either way, but it just something I noticed while watching the film.

There's the whole aspect of all the principal bad guys being white males (Kylo Ren looks like the DOOM playing type that would shoot up a high school) (and a blonde, blue eyed girl that had no role whatsoever) while the main good guys are: a woman, a black guy and a latinoish pilot. The implicit racism is mildly distasteful.

While that is true, its also about creating a suspension of disbelief. Its something intangible, either you feel it or you don't. The original films did that well because they had a seemingly consistent universe, basic fairy tale structure and a lot of charming naivete (and innovative visual design/effects, for their time). It would be unfair (read: impossible) to expect that the seventh film in the series appear as something completely new and original in a universe that has been defined down to the latrines on space ships. Nevertheless I feel they missed a good opportunity for a role reversal, to continue the story where it left off - with the Republic now perhaps becoming the oppressive government and the FO being a terrorist organization - to expand on the Sith and Jedi, maybe create something less morally black and white. In other words - if SW can't return to its former "innocence" (not really feasible now) - it can at least grow up, like Batman (supposedly) grew up. The point is - it can still be more of the same (in a good way), but it doesn't have to be the exact same thing.

I feel you have kind of missed the point completely. Did you even watch the movie or have you just read reviews? Of course you are meant to think firstly that Rey is powerful, you are meant to think that her past seems fishy and she might already have received training. It's established very early in the movie that she is a capable fighter, on the other hand we do not know if Kylo Ren has received any training at fighting with a lightsabre at all. In fact, him using never before seen force powers but still not being an unbeatable fighter would perhaps hint towards the nature of his master. Clearly this is extremely dangerous - Han Solo which is implied as being the best pilot around consider this approach almost suicidal. This is like saying "well, if the Nazis could drop paratroopers on Crete, why didn't they just drop paratroopers on London?". This is funny you know - I see that we disagree on the quality of TFA. I have often thought starting from several years ago that the more often a review mentions the word "plot hole", the more retarded the reviewer is, and the better the movie. I have yet to see any exceptions to this, and as I joke I have thought that I would try to intentionally find reviews mentioning "plot holes" in order to find movies to watch. I mean, think of the people who upon watching Blade Runner go "It's a plot hole that they don't say if Deckard is a replicant or not", nevermind a movie such as "Stalker" which will just go almost completely over their heads. 2001 and Prometheus are also movies which seem to short-circuit some people. I'm not defending Episode I here, but isn't it pretty clear that she can't go with them since Jedi can't have any wordly attachments? I mean, this is how real-world monastic orders operate so I would find the opposite to be silly TBH. I am 99% sure that Kylo Ren and Snoke will turn on each other in the next movie. But I think it is most likely that neither will kill the other (at least until the last movie). I think Snoke will attack Kylo Ren and not the other way around, though. I was mildly disappointed with the soundtrack, but this stood out for me. IMO there is a significant possibility that Williams does not get to score all the movies in the current trilogy. What do you mean? What did you expect? Since we have only seen Snoke as a hologram, he might be something different than what we've been shown thus far (like a Rakatan for example). You're looking for explanations and excuses that are not substantiated in the film and may or may not be be explained away in the sequel. However I seriously doubt it as this film didn't bother to explain a lot of otherwise basic things - most importantly why is the universe frozen in the state from 40 years later (Han Solo again a rogue, why is there still a resistance, why is there a new death star [how does an inferior force design a far superior weapon that's x times larger?] etc. etc.). Of course, the obvious answer is that its a remake and not a real sequel, and the immediate question is why? Its supposed to be a 9 part epic with a continuous storyline, something even the prequels had. Why is it the same thing from 40 years ago? Once we get the obvious reboot out of the way, on its own merits its a watered down version of A New Hope, less plausible and less well crafted for its time. There's nothing to short circuit with Prometheus, the film is brainless garbage. I still chuckle when I remember the scene in which the donut ship (that was oh so nice in the original Alien) rolls around while one of the characters runs in front of it, a veritable cherry on top after idiot geologists and alien cobras, zombies, spontanious c-sections after which the main actress runs around the ship covered in blood and no one bats an eye... Its a galaxy apart from Stalker or Blade Runner, or even Alien. Hell, it makes the Incredible Hulk look like Citizen Kane. There was no reason to leave Anakin's mother on Tatooine. They could have taken her anywhere else, at the very least got her out of slavery and to safety. There is no plausible explanation why Qui and Obi didn't do it since they have 0 qualms about breaking laws in general.

Yes its unclear who they're actually resisting. And why they're still a rag tag bunch after winning the war, same dingy bunker HQ, same handful of aircraft, same fish head general (how long do they live?), even the same froglike guy that was piloting with Lando :D . Even a fat x wing pilot. And why they're looking for Luke (perhaps the guy would come back on his own when he felt like it?). And umm yeah. Btw the FO must be the most unsuccessful organization ever. Seemingly limitless resources but they didn't have a single measurable success in the film. This solo effort is better than all the action scenes in the film: :D https://youtu.be/PN_CP4SuoTU

I also watched Sicario and found it shallow and boring. Next!

The question of PST was repeated many times: What can change the nature of a man? and the answer is within the player's motivations and choices. Admittedly its a bit of a fail since TNO changes all the time, and the PC is left to atone for the choices that someone else made forging his own, new identity in the process and not actually changing anything from the original who is for all intents and purposes dead and gone. Perhaps at the end when he's complete we can speak of change, but by that point there are no meaningful choices or radical shifts to be made from what I recall.

It probably is. It certainly has the best story and the best characters, although as a game, Baldur's Gate II is much better.

In retrospect the most surprising thing is that no one realized that there was a grown ostrich inside the egg as it was quite heavy and you couldn't feel anything sloshing around inside. It felt so solid and alive that putting it somewhere warm was practically a compulsive action. The little fella got away from certain death, cause when mom abandons the nest, its done for - warthogs and other critters usually eat everything that's left behind. Interesting fact - ostriches make fairly good guard dogs. Extremely territorial, and can get used to its owners. The problem is only if anyone else comes to visit as they can deliver a potentially deadly kick. They hit like a brick and have sharp talons.

I was seriously infatuated with Jurassic Park. At the time I was living in Africa and my dad brought back an ostrich egg that was left behind. Everyone thought it was just egg yolk as it usually happens with the eggs that are abandoned. Anyway, my infatuation with JP led to me leaving the egg in a blanket (instead of it being punctured to drain) until a few hours later it cracked. I got shouted at for breaking the new ornament, but the joke was on my parents - a baby ostrich hatched a bit later and had to be driven to a friend's farm. Damn thing is tall when it learns to stand. It was a fun experience. That's how Spielberg saved an ostrich, and one day, when he comes before God, that will make up for a lot of the films he subsequently inflicted upon us. And, for an afternoon, I was a mom to an ostrich <3

Have Kylo Ren betray and pwn him in the next movie so we don't have to deal with him anymore. His purpose in the new trilogy would just to be a device to show Ren's progress as a dark side user. Believe it or not, just moments ago I was thinking that would be the best thing that could happen. Kylo Ren becomes unbalanced after killing dad > slaughters Snokey in a fit of fury > someone new is introduced for the sith as Ren's competitor (so we don't have to watch Ren all the time). Win-win.

Actually I'm not all that enamored with Star Wars, but I do like space fantasy/space opera in general and I've been craving something good in the genre now that effects have reached a point where the only limit is creativity and no they longer look as uncanny valley as they used to (although I really like real physical models, and prefer them whenever possible to CGI). But for some reason, almost all high budget sci-fi films are either in the superhero genre, dystopic "arenas" (I forget what the Maze, Hunger Games etc. genre is called) or remakes/reboots. And made by Nolan The last thing I watched that was genuinely interesting and new was Edge of Tomorrow.

If it wasn't for Jar Jar, a weak script (full of arbitrary ****, like leaving Anakin's mother behind on a practically lawless planet where anything you can get away with goes - only for subsequent drama reasons) and underwhelming performances it would have been quite good. With half a million votes it now holds a score of 6.5 on Imdb, which is mediocre/poor while FA with 250000 votes has 8.7 (although like all new films it will drop substantially over time) which is incredibly high. While there was undoubtedly substantial artificial boosting with fake accounts which is standard practice today (and was not the case when Phantom menace was released and Imdb scores less relevant to cinema attendance), it seems that the audiences liked FA much more. I find this particularly interesting because there were so many weak aspects to FA, even compared to the prequel films. I'd say its a case of everyone getting swept up in the marketing (and it was insane, everywhere I looked there were images of stormtroopers and other SW references). While I don't find it inconceivable that someone could like FA, it doesn't hold a candle even to Return of the Jedi, even perhaps Revenge of the Sith. Anyway, I'm glad that Abrams isn't doing the sequel (frankly, I think he's a very poor imitator of Spielberg, and that is not a man known for making incredibly deep and layered films either)- fingers crossed for something better next time around. I think with all the accumulated lore and ideas - a SW reboot could easily be done much better, although a clean slate would help (how is anyone going to fix Snoke?).

There's a lot of that today and I think that's a garbage approach to be honest. A film should be able to stand on its own two legs through and through.

I actually watched the Phantom Menace yesterday to freshen up my impression - and while it is definitely worse overall than Force Awakens, it still has more SW charm than what Abrams has done. And a better story (which doesn't mean the story is actually good). Its just that PM's flaws are incredibly grating and ruin the experience while FA's are better covered up. And, well, based on an already functional formula - whereas PM does something new. *shrug*

In terms of breaking established rules the one thing that bothered me most was Han's hyperspace jump behind the Starkiller base shields. Good grief why did they drop a ground team on Endor with a stolen shuttle in Return of the Jedi if they could have just jumped right on top of the shield generator, or just jumped straight to the entrance of the second Death Star's superstructure? The film is full of plot holes and nonsense like that. Most movies are, but Abrams really doesn't care about that sort of thing. All he wants is for people to walk away with the impression that they've seen something great and the constant action is there to divert their attention from the many inconsistencies. Make the death star bigger, make an in joke about it being the same thing only ten times as large and presto - you're excused for making the third film about blowing up a death star :D

Having a secret past doesn't preclude her from being interesting in the 2 hours we've already seen. But she isn't really. There's no characterization whatsoever, all she does is move from one set piece to another remaining essentially unchanged, without any background - and without anyone actually asking her anything of importance. And break all the established rules of the SW universe, by being able to use the force and lightsaber untrained. I'm sure they'll find a semi-plausible explanation in the next film, but its a far cry from Luke in the first film. He may be a walking peasant-to-hero archetype but at least its all credible and well executed in the context of the film.

The chance of grabbing any sharp implement coming at you full speed is slim to none. We tried mock sessions, if it was the real thing everyone would be dead. My friend who got stabbed on the street in some ridiculous dispute never even saw the blade coming, he only had time to lift his arm which was skewered instead of his stomach.

The Vatican should know

I don't know about Austrian laws but in Serbia it would be straight to the police station if that thing was found on you. To have deniability it would need to be a folder type of innocuous design. Generally speaking, a knife is not a good option for self-defense since there are no ways of using it without killing or maiming the other person - in other words, getting into a situation where you're the guilty party. If someone is out to murder you yes (not likely, is it?), but if get into a fistfight and pull a knife that's attempted murder and its straight to jail for you, even if you didn't start it. On the other hand, if you're attacked in a determined manner with any tool (bat, tire iron, knife) that would give you the excuse to use it the likelihood of being able to draw and defend oneself in time is remote. If you want to carry a stabbing weapon, there is nothing better than a screwdriver with a sharpened tip, because its impossible to break regardless of what it hits and the handles are usually much better for grip. And its easy to find an excuse to have one on you. And you can't get cut if your fingers slip on it. In the absence of guns, I'd prefer pepper spray, shock devices, caution and quick feet. This coming from a guy with a drawer full of various knives. I used to carry a pocketknife but its utility was low and it was easy to get into the habit of carrying it to the point that I sometimes forgot I had it on me. Not a good thing to walk into a government building with a metal detector with a knife that just sits in your pocket all the time. Police tend not to believe explanations at that point.

Actually I'd say that people their age look just about the same, (or at least you could still find weathered guys if you wanted to) its the hollywood casting process that has gone to ****. Actors were often expected to be good looking, particularly for certain roles (leading man), but then you could get guys like Humphrey Bogart who obviously didn't skate in on looks alone (or at all). Anyway, I agree. Nowadays unless you're a an ex star like Ford or Nicholson, the demands are that you look perfect in every respect - even for movies that are "gritty" and "dark" and these two just don't mesh together at all. Jennifer Lawrence's chubby babyish features shouldn't be the poster face of hardcore surivalism in Hunger games (ever seen anyone who looks less hungry?) unless the comedy is intentional.

But... your example of not casting people who look too young was Indiana Jones, starring Harrison Ford, the man who looks so much younger than his age that they cast a man only ten years his senior to play his elderly, stuffy father and nobody even noticed. That's the kind of mistake that can only come from someone so ancient and stuffy they can't remember what young people even look like... Not someone my age. In short - for my own faith in humankind, I've decided to not even believe you. Its not that Harrison Ford looked younger (he was 36 or so at the time and that seemed about right), its Sean Connery that entered a well preserved state that lasted for the next thirty years. Anyway, they both looked manly... but in Indy 4 we we treated to this: Why is that face in front of the camera? WHYYYY

Wow, how many kids do you have? Only Kylo Ren and I'm disappoint with that boy

Yeah right, a sober Serb. A travesty I know.

Its a thankless job but someone has to do it. Sober!