Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

[Tigranes]

 

I have yet to encounter people who insist on not watching stuff they find fun, and watching stuff they don't enjoy, for years and years. Why would anyone be so crazy? But that's the crazy, crazy world that such arguments always assume. Without any reason, except a "everyone must think like me" assumption. 

 

Did you ever meet any of those swaggetarian hipster guys that seem to pop up everywhere? I'm perfectly certain such equivalents exist for entertainment too. Like a bunch of people I know who pretend to like jazz because it makes them feel superior to the grunts enjoying a bunch of Taylor Swift. Heh.

 

 

There's always a minority that force themselves to consume what they don't enjoy, but you'll find that most people who spew at the sound of Justin Bieber just really cannot stand it. And if you gave me some of the fried goods Americans consume with glee, I would refuse it not because of my health (I eat plenty of terrible things), but because the mere thought of even touching those things gives me a fright. 

 

It's just a gigantic logical fallacy where "he likes Eisenstein and hates Michael Bay" => "But Michael Bay is fun [to me] and Eisenstein is incomprehensible [to me]" => "he must be pretending to enjoy Eisenstein and pretending to hate Michael Bay" => "why doesn't he just watch the fun stuff instead?" Much of the time, complaints about snobbery just becomes a backdoor way to say that people who like fancy stuff aren't entitled to a taste and should obey your own. 

 

It happens the other way, of course, and both are silly. 

[Hurlshort]

I'm really not following what you are saying Tigranes.  What is with the Einstein vs. Michael Bay example?  Are the two somehow incongruous?  

 

It seems like I see an awful lot more of the "Oh, you like Michael Bay, you are a lesser mortal" than anything else.  Granted that is probably because people who enjoy popular stuff are too busy out, uh, enjoying stuff.   

[ktchong]

Okay, I just saw the movie again.   I caught a very important clue about Rey, which is hidden in a very early dialogue scene in the movie, (or is it a monologue?)

 

Rey: "Where do you come from?"

 

BB-8: "Boop, Boop."

 

Rey: "Classified, really?"

 

BB-8: "Beep."

 

Rey: "Me too."

 

IMO, that is a foreshadowing subtext.  It is heavily implied in Rey's flashback sequence that her memory of her past had been altered and tampered with... probably by master-level Jedi mind trick. Her command of the Force and a lightsabre also suggests that she must have had prior training in using the Force and a lightsabre. So, who had erased and altered her memory? And why? Where did she really come from?

Well.... as Rey herself unknowingly revealed and foreshadowed, her origin is classified information, which we will find out in the sequels, most likely at the end of the second movie or in the final movie of the new trilogy. When the entire trilogy is completed and released in four or five years, we will look back and realize, wow, the clue was in one of the very first scenes in the first movie!

Edited December 20, 2015 by ktchong

[Hurlshort]

So no one else thought the way Poe survived the crash was odd?

[ktchong]

Holy ****... what if the Luke's apprentice who killed all his other students at the Jedi Temple was actually Rey and not Kylo Ren! That would explain why her memory was erased.  That will certainly be a shocker when it is revealed at the end of the second movie.

Edited December 20, 2015 by ktchong

[Elerond]

I'm really not following what you are saying Tigranes.  What is with the Einstein vs. Michael Bay example?  Are the two somehow incongruous?  

 

It seems like I see an awful lot more of the "Oh, you like Michael Bay, you are a lesser mortal" than anything else.  Granted that is probably because people who enjoy popular stuff are too busy out, uh, enjoying stuff.   

 

Not Einstein, Eisenstein, meaning Sergei Eisenstein, who was Soviet film director, who are noted for his silent films like Strike (1925), Battleship Potemkin (1925) and October (1928) and his historical epics like Alexander Nevsky (1938) and Ivan the Terrible (1944, 1958). I would say that his style was much different than what Michael Bay for example uses.

[Elerond]

So no one else thought the way Poe survived the crash was odd?

 

I find it bit stupid that they didn't bother to actually explain how he survived even though they used his implied death as plot device to make Finn do stuff that he probably otherwise wouldn't have done.

[Raithe]

I like how people have stopped using spoilers when mentioning direct points of the film rather than general impressions...

[Fenixp]

[majestic]

It's just a gigantic logical fallacy where "he likes Eisenstein and hates Michael Bay" => "But Michael Bay is fun [to me] and Eisenstein is incomprehensible [to me]" => "he must be pretending to enjoy Eisenstein and pretending to hate Michael Bay" => "why doesn't he just watch the fun stuff instead?" Much of the time, complaints about snobbery just becomes a backdoor way to say that people who like fancy stuff aren't entitled to a taste and should obey your own. 

 

It happens the other way, of course, and both are silly.

 

Of course both are silly. It is, however, possible to earn a living by being the snobbish variant. We call those people art critics.

[Hurlshort]

 

So no one else thought the way Poe survived the crash was odd?

 

I find it bit stupid that they didn't bother to actually explain how he survived even though they used his implied death as plot device to make Finn do stuff that he probably otherwise wouldn't have done.

 

 

Hmm, that is why I think there is more to it than that.  Gives me a LOST vibe, for sure.

[Hurlshort]

 

I'm really not following what you are saying Tigranes.  What is with the Einstein vs. Michael Bay example?  Are the two somehow incongruous?  

 

It seems like I see an awful lot more of the "Oh, you like Michael Bay, you are a lesser mortal" than anything else.  Granted that is probably because people who enjoy popular stuff are too busy out, uh, enjoying stuff.   

 

Not Einstein, Eisenstein, meaning Sergei Eisenstein, who was Soviet film director, who are noted for his silent films like Strike (1925), Battleship Potemkin (1925) and October (1928) and his historical epics like Alexander Nevsky (1938) and Ivan the Terrible (1944, 1958). I would say that his style was much different than what Michael Bay for example uses.

 

 

Ah, my mistake, I am chagrined.  

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

It's just a gigantic logical fallacy where "he likes Eisenstein and hates Michael Bay" => "But Michael Bay is fun [to me] and Eisenstein is incomprehensible [to me]" => "he must be pretending to enjoy Eisenstein and pretending to hate Michael Bay" => "why doesn't he just watch the fun stuff instead?" Much of the time, complaints about snobbery just becomes a backdoor way to say that people who like fancy stuff aren't entitled to a taste and should obey your own. 

 

It happens the other way, of course, and both are silly.

 

Of course both are silly. It is, however, possible to earn a living by being the snobbish variant. We call those people art critics.

 

 

Calling Michael Bay movies **** doesn't automatically mean that everyone who enjoys them is a pleb. Those are two entirely different things. 

 

It also doesn't mean that its just "a matter of taste". Eisenstein is an obligatory feature of film studies and an important innovator in the medium, and Michal Bay is a director of melodramatic blockbusters known more for making money than contributing anything of value to the medium. *shrug*

 

Personally, I had fun watching Armageddon... when I was teenager. Eisenstein is a bit too dated for me to enjoy, like most "innovators", what was once new, after many repetitions leads to the viewer having a hard time seeing "what the fuss is all bout". So while I like neither of them today, its would be a gross error to equate things that simply aren't equal.

 

The point is that people shouldn't consider it a personal affront when someone is criticizing something they enjoy. They're making a judgment of the thing, not the person. There is no reason to invest one's ego in, what is after all, someone else's work.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

[Drowsy Emperor]

^and I cried in the cinema like a little bitch

 

Live and learn :D

[Vaeliorin]

Holy ****... what if the Luke's apprentice who killed all his other students at the Jedi Temple was actually Rey and not Kylo Ren! That would explain why her memory was erased.  That will certainly be a shocker when it is revealed at the end of the second movie.

So Rey is Revan?

[Drowsy Emperor]

Well that would explain how she was able to beat Ren so easily (another nonsensical moment in the film).

[Meshugger]

Just saw it. I feel....kinda cheated. It was

Episode IV again. I mean another Deathstar Starkiller? And where the other characters even necessary besides Rey? She was pretty much a Jedi demi-God already and could've done everything by herself. There was simply no suspense, atleast for me

.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Meshugger

[Sarex]

Just saw it. I feel....kinda cheated. It was

Episode VI again. I mean another Deathstar Starkiller? And where the other characters even necessary besides Rey? She was pretty much a Jedi demi-God already and could've done everything by herself. There was simply no suspense, atleast for me

.

 

There wasn't any suspense for me either, I pretty much guessed the key points of the movie before they happened. That was the price they payed to be able to cater to the original trilogy crowd, lets just hope the sequels move on.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Sarex

[Raithe]

Just saw it as my first Imax experience.

 

It was that... hm. I'm conflicted. It has that "good but.." vibe. As a general movie it was good. On most things a lot better paced, acted and looking than all of the prequels.

However, as has been mentioned now, it also basically re-runs a lot of A New Hope with little twists.

But the one major problem I have with it.. is the music. Sure, the blended in pieces from the original trilogy are nice call to emotions and events, but there is not one single stand out piece of recognisable music that is The Force Awakens own. At least the prequels did have that nailed, even if you didn't like the music, you had bits that were distinctly recognisable and tied to each film.

[Blarghagh]

Eisenstein is a bit too dated for me to enjoy, like most "innovators", what was once new, after many repetitions leads to the viewer having a hard time seeing "what the fuss is all bout".

Ain't that the truth. Citizen Kane is an important film in terms of the impact it had on film direction and cinematography, but boy is it a boring drag nowadays.

 

Just saw it as my first Imax experience.

 

It was that... hm. I'm conflicted. It has that "good but.." vibe. As a general movie it was good. On most things a lot better paced, acted and looking than all of the prequels.

However, as has been mentioned now, it also basically re-runs a lot of A New Hope with little twists.

But the one major problem I have with it.. is the music. Sure, the blended in pieces from the original trilogy are nice call to emotions and events, but there is not one single stand out piece of recognisable music that is The Force Awakens own. At least the prequels did have that nailed, even if you didn't like the music, you had bits that were distinctly recognisable and tied to each film.

The weird thing is, it's still John Williams making the music. But I felt it was more John Williams doing Harry Potter than John Williams doing Star Wars. Both are good, but very different.

Edited December 20, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Namutree]

Well that would explain how she was able to beat Ren so easily (another nonsensical moment in the film).

No, it isn't. 

 

 

Kylo Ren was already severely injured, and thus at a huge disadvantage. Rey didn't "easily" win as she wouldn't have won at all without Finn's help.

 

[majestic]

 

Well that would explain how she was able to beat Ren so easily (another nonsensical moment in the film).

No, it isn't. 

 

 

Kylo Ren was already severely injured, and thus at a huge disadvantage. Rey didn't "easily" win as she wouldn't have won at all without Finn's help.

 

 

 

 

That excuse doesn't cut it considering how easily Ben force pushes Rey into a tree, only then to forget about his force powers while fighting the untrained Finn in a pure lightsaber duel that conveniently lasts just long enough for Rey to wake up again - but that is a problem that the prequels had too, at times. Compare that to both Vader vs. Luke duels in the original trilogy - in the first Vader actively uses telekinetics to beat Luke and in the second one Luke actively uses the force to hide. *shrug*

 

Sure, I'm perfectly certain that hit by Chewie's bowcaster was what supposed to level the playing field but then it would have been much better if Rey had been disabled long enough by something else.

 

[Oerwinde]

They spent half the movie playing up how effective Chewie's bowcaster was too. Sending stormtroopers flying from the impact and such.

[Sarex]

They spent half the movie playing up how effective Chewie's bowcaster was too. Sending stormtroopers flying from the impact and such.

 

I think they were playing on how iconic Han's blaster is.