|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 12, 2021 1:22:12 GMT
Cryogenic smittysgelato Cursed Child is TLJ of the Harry Potter Franchise no one wants to see that and when was the last time Chris Columbus Made a Good Movie? (My Mom Loves The first 2 Home Alones Christmas With the Kranks (Considered one of the Worst Christmas Films) and Gremlins (The Latter 2 He Wrote). Maybe he's lost his touch a bit. I don't think you can say that about J.J. Abrams, on the other hand. He's a one-man repurposing industry and he seems to be having the time of his life. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 12, 2021 4:55:40 GMT
Whenever I read someone like Chris Columbus say stuff like, "Star Wars really started to be great again," in regards to the Sequels I don't really get angry. I just sit there and think: "I just don't relate to these people at all." I'm glad I was born when I was. 1990. Right smack in between the OT and PT. That way I was old enough to be exposed to the OT first and be a fan of that, but not too old when the Prequels came out so that I wasn't too cynical. That way, I got to be a PT fanboy too. I was born in 1983. I really used to love "Home Alone" (1 and 2) and "Mrs. Doubtfire". I probably still do. I hate Home Alone. I hated that goddamn movie from day one, at the innocent age of 10 when it first came out. The 10-yearold me was like, "Nope. Bullshit."Speaking of which (sorta—Chris Columbus), I can't think of any other franchise that, proportionate to its popularity, I found so utterly boring from start to finish than those Harry Potter movies. Of course, I wasn't a tike when the first one came out and thus it's not a franchise I grew up with. But still... |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 12, 2021 5:37:03 GMT
I was born in 1983. I really used to love "Home Alone" (1 and 2) and "Mrs. Doubtfire". I probably still do. I hate Home Alone. I hated that goddamn movie from day one, at the innocent age of 10 when it first came out. The 10-yearold me was like, "Nope. Bullshit."Speaking of which (sorta—Chris Columbus), I can't think of any other franchise that, proportionate to its popularity, I found so utterly boring from start to finish than those Harry Potter movies. Of course, I wasn't a tike when the first one came out and thus it's not a franchise I grew up with. But still... Well, actually, it was more the second "Home Alone", in my case -- love the New York setting and everything done in that movie. I've never been a fan of the "Harry Potter" movies. They are a little off the mainline concept of a "blockbuster" or "event" movie, in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Nov 12, 2021 18:28:56 GMT
I'm also not a fan of the Potter movies. With the exception of the first two (yep, the Columbus ones) which are actually well done adaptations, the rest are an inspid series of movies which I avoid to watch.
I did enjoy the books though.
|
|
|
|
Post by eljedicolombiano on Dec 20, 2021 0:47:51 GMT
I'm with you guys in the disdain for Harry Potter, though I must admit I never read the books. The story just doesn't resonate with me, for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Dec 29, 2021 3:18:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eljedicolombiano on Dec 29, 2021 11:23:44 GMT
Not uncommon in Twitter land but eh, don’t really care at this point.
If you analyze his psychology Jake is a completely different person to Luke Skywalker
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Jan 2, 2022 17:42:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eljedicolombiano on Jan 2, 2022 21:01:16 GMT
don´t understand the fans who want the creator gone from his own creation- it´s a form of idolatry they commit
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Jan 3, 2022 1:53:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Feb 12, 2022 21:36:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Mar 24, 2022 21:56:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Mar 24, 2022 23:31:03 GMT
In a way, everything.
Maz Kanata is above Ahsoka and Hera Syndulla which is ridiculous as she has like 5 minutes screen time. If she did something extraordinary, then , well, the screentime doesn't matter but this is not the case. Second, ageism. The only really old female is Maz (and she isn't even human, i.e .we actually don't know that she is really old and how old is she). Women should be bold, beautiful and YOUNG. Otherwise Beru Lars and Shmi Skywalker would be present. For the record, where is Mon Mothma?! And Jyn Erso?
And the reason why you ask the question: Padme is not there, nor her handmaidens.
These fans does not understand even the symbolical role of Padme in the prequels. Padme is not the Anakin beloved one, as many of them think. She is the love of his life, yes. But her role is not reduced to that. The PT begins with a description of a world where Padme could play very active role. It is a world without war. The battle of Naboo is a battle but it is more like a diversion for the real reason: NEGOTIATIONS. Padme is the beacon of peace, because only during peace the life would flourish. Her life is dedicated to compassion and love. In AOTC when the war begins, what happens with Padme and Anakin: they get married. This is, in a way the ultimate opposition to the war that's why I like so much the ending of AOTC: it gives the feeling that there is still hope: for Padme, for Ani, for their world. While Padme is restrained in her social role (as senator she is barely present in the Senate and is even forced to go out and enter in the eye of war) in her personal space is exactly the opposite. The shadow is not upon it, if I can say so. Many fans whine how she looks passive in ROTS but that is exactly the point: in the peak of the clone wars what really Padme could do? Her arena is the peace, not the war. Her arena are the negotiations, not the conflict. She begs for dimplomacy but no one listen (even the good guys, for that matter). However Padme's role in ROTS is crucial because she is the only one that never gave up for the cause of peace and the good, and she never gave up for Anakin. Padme is the only one who believed that Anakin came back. She paid for for she stood with her life but she saved the hope (through her children).
|
|
|
|
Post by Samnz on Apr 5, 2022 13:58:26 GMT
What's funny is that Kylo (meaning Adam Driver) is the only case in the Saga that makes me think the acting is laughable. What I see is a guy (Driver) who is acting, not a fictional character. Over. The. Top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 5, 2022 23:34:37 GMT
What's funny is that Kylo (meaning Adam Driver) is the only case in the Saga that makes me think the acting is laughable. What I see is a guy (Driver) who is acting, not a fictional character. Over. The. Top. I actually think Adam Driver gives the best performance in the Saga. Very understated and dour, with a strong undercurrent of self-mortification. He really gives the impression of a person of great emotional volatility and moral uncertainty, who is always one step away from either imploding or falling on his knees in regret. When he needs to be, he is also quizzical, dazed, or in some kind of hyperbolic rage. But he always retreats back into sadness and something a tad pitiable. I don't see over-the-top. I see a note-perfect portrayal of an unstable ingenue who is terribly haunted and quietly looking for a return to innocence. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Apr 6, 2022 1:03:55 GMT
Cryogenic As i said earlier many think Kylo is what Anakin should have been
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Apr 6, 2022 6:00:26 GMT
Driver's screen presence was more interesting, more affecting, than the written character, by the 2nd and 3rd film particularly. He's a pliable visual for one: Mordred meets Edmond Dantès meets Rudolph Valentino meets '90s Trent Reznor—a heartthrob as romanticized, perhaps, by Mary Shelley. But like with so much of the ST his character suffers from conceptual vagueness and one too many restarts.
It's a strange case. I think Driver's performance was wrong and good, discordant and preferable all at the same time. In any event, no, it's not what Anakin should have been. Not even close, really. |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Apr 6, 2022 17:53:22 GMT
Driver's screen presence was more interesting, more affecting, than the written character, by the 2nd and 3rd film particularly. He's a pliable visual for one: Mordred meets Edmond Dantès meets Rudolph Valentino meets '90s Trent Reznor—a heartthrob as romanticized, perhaps, by Mary Shelley. But like with so much of the ST his character suffers from conceptual vagueness and one too many restarts.
It's a strange case. I think Driver's performance was wrong and good, discordant and preferable all at the same time. In any event, no, it's not what Anakin should have been. Not even close, really.
The mighty Kylo Ren. When I found you...I saw what all masters live to see. Raw, untamed power.
And beyond that, something truly special. The potential of your bloodline. A new Vader. Now I fear...I was mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 7, 2022 3:00:46 GMT
Driver's screen presence was more interesting, more affecting, than the written character, by the 2nd and 3rd film particularly. He's a pliable visual for one: Mordred meets Edmond Dantès meets Rudolph Valentino meets '90s Trent Reznor—a heartthrob as romanticized, perhaps, by Mary Shelley. But like with so much of the ST his character suffers from conceptual vagueness and one too many restarts. It's a strange case. I think Driver's performance was wrong and good, discordant and preferable all at the same time. In any event, no, it's not what Anakin should have been. Not even close, really.
The mighty Kylo Ren. When I found you...I saw what all masters live to see. Raw, untamed power.
And beyond that, something truly special. The potential of your bloodline. A new Vader. Now I fear...I was mistaken.Exactly. He's meant to be broken, uncertain, messed-up: a work-in-progress. "I'm being torn apart." This, in fact, is the driving (no pun intended) philosophy behind his lightsaber and his look in TFA. His appearance was meant to look unfinished, ragged, and dangerous. Rian Johnson inherited that raw material and expanded on it in an appropriate and congruent way. There was also a deliberate arc built into Kylo's character for the Sequel Trilogy that he would become more grounded in the Dark Side over time. Adam Driver has spoken about this. His arc was designed to be an inversion of Vader's arc (where doubt creeps in and Vader becomes broken up -- which, as Lucas has said, C-3PO is a metaphor of -- when Luke rejects him in TESB). Kylo, after Rey's rejection, heads in the other direction. His last big show of mania is when he orders the guns be fired on Luke. After failing spectacularly on Crait, he is left alone, in the darkness, to ponder his actions. Rey literally shuts the Millennium Falcon door on him. And the dice fade away. The meaning is clear: Kylo is on his own now. The Sequel Trilogy seems to be saying a lot more than people say about it. That's kind of the tragedy of Star Wars: of all compelling works of art. They are all destined to be misunderstood -- the full power and beauty of them only understood in pieces; the whole never quite seen (or, perhaps, truly knowable). Can we truly "see" the universe? |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Apr 7, 2022 5:53:35 GMT
So Kylo is a broken-up inversion of Vader. Yeah. That, I got. I don't know if I'd call it a deliberate arc, however, so much as a piecemeal chain of dramatic conflicts and exchanges that sustains a nominal standard of narrative without ever wildly contradicting itself. He's certainly the most compelling crockpot of ideas among the ST lineup, but there's a lot of wheels spinning in place and padding out the runtime from one Episode -- often one scene -- to the next. From a storytelling perspective it wasn't uncertainty as a compelling theme that I for one gauged; it was stalling with ample storefront goings-on. This may have much to do with how the content was actually executed from script to screen with pedestrian filmmaking, or maybe my gauges are simply off.
|
|
