planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:32 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules






Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:38 pm
Posts: 2555
Just came home from watching it. I am no huge Star Wars fan but I have seen the older ones. I really liked this one. Abrams has done a good job in preserving the Star Wars feel from old imo. I pretty much liked all the characters, new and old.
For you that really loved the first 3 (4,5 and 6) you'll get some treats in this.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5233
That was f**king epic!

Much more starwarsy than the prequels like Mr-E said. The only things I felt let down by was the look of the supreme leader (not as ominous or threatening as Darth Sidius, and imo they revealed his appearance way too early) and I wasn't overly impressed with the actor who played Ben (think that what he was called). But other than that, really, really enjoyed it.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1172
Location: Los Angeles, California
Biffa wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Biffa wrote:
minchy wrote:
Biffa wrote:
I’m not a cinema person but definitely looking forward to this one (on the pretence of taking my nephew of course).

My mum took me to the ‘first’ star wars film when I was just a nipper and it was the most amazing thing! I’ve been hooked on sci-fi ever since, but star wars always makes me a bit sad and nostalgic because I think back to 1978 and the sense of awe and wonder us kids felt at that time, and I don’t see anything today that evokes that same emotion and excitement from kids the same age as I was, which is a real shame (or am I wrong and just getting old?).

No, you're right! I remember growing up in the late 70's/early 80's and having only 3 tv channels and no VHS or Betamax. So going to the cinema was a massive deal! Nowadays, young people have so much as standard such as on demand film and tv on everyday things like phones and huge tvs (I remember having a 14" and thinking when my dad got a 24" how massive it was!) that just cause something on a bigger screen, doesn't make that special.

But after watching the latest trailer, there's no pretence at all for me, I'm off the midnight showing on release day with a 40 year old friend of mine at the same 20's cinema that I saw Jedi in back in '83 :]

Edit: Not that its a bad thing what kids have got today, I'm not going off on a 'back in my day' type rant! It's just already a very different time to when I grew up.


He he, glad to hear it's not just me , and I have to admit I'm a bit jealous of you going to the midnight showing.

But my goodness yes I do remember how big a deal it was going to the cinema back in the day, and I agree it’s not a bad thing what kids have today, I just think it’s a real shame that there seems to be no sense of awe and excitement that accompanies that any more.

Talking about your dad's TV reminded me of the first time I was allowed to take the old black and white 'portable' TV (portable if you had a van) to my bedroom - didn't matter that is was black and white when the highlight of the week is 'Hammer house of horror'! but a TV in the bedroom when I was was that age was an opluent, futuristic, and decadent marvel - doesn't get any better than that!

Anyway sorry to go off subject - Yay Star Wars is coming!

I'm with you. I have a 5 and nearly 3 year old and it's incredible to think what they have available to them. We've got a 3TB drive plugged into the TV and loaded with all the older ones favourite TV shows and movies. It's all just there for her. When I was about eight I had a VHS of Star Wars recorded from the TV and another of Yellow Submarine. That was it. Later I'd stay up excited to see something like a Hammer movie or any sci-fi I could find on TV. Part of me likes that I've been able to expose my eldest to so much I love, part of me laments they'll never have the thrill of finally finding the gem they've been searching dusty video shops for. It's hard to see what can engage kids again in the way Star Wars did for me. The studios have become too good at knowing what we want and every week there's a new Marvel (or whatever) movie that would have been the most amazing thing to my 10 year old self, but is now just more of the same. It's nice watching things through my nearly 3 year old's eyes though. Because he hasn't been swamped by recent movies yet A New Hope is the pinnacle of mankind's achievements to him. At the moment he asks to watch it several dozen times a day and goes nuts whenever he sees Chewbacca in a shop. I guess one day it will be just another franchise to him.


Yes, you hit the nail on the head when you said ‘what they’ve got available to them’….

I think I might be a couple of years older than you, but I always remember what made it special for me was; cinema and even ‘a video’ back then exposed you to something that absolutely wasn’t available on normal TV, which isn’t really the case anymore, and that’s what made it so special – it was more scary, gruesome, more edgy, better special effects (which was a big deal back then (who here remembers trying to pause a video in an ‘old’ horror video at the gory bit for example (Omen 2) when the chap gets cut in half in the lift (elevator) etc. )).

The first ever video as a youngster I secretly watched with my pal was ‘The Manitou’, which blew our mind! I found it recently on youtube and kids these days would probably laugh at how pedestrian and unexciting it is…

Oh well, the joys of being old eh!


I know what you mean. I remember watching the Stallone movie "Cobra" and pausing it right when the van crushes the security guard against the elevator door. Because it all happens in a single shot, I was amazed by it.

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Biffa wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Biffa wrote:
minchy wrote:
No, you're right! I remember growing up in the late 70's/early 80's and having only 3 tv channels and no VHS or Betamax. So going to the cinema was a massive deal! Nowadays, young people have so much as standard such as on demand film and tv on everyday things like phones and huge tvs (I remember having a 14" and thinking when my dad got a 24" how massive it was!) that just cause something on a bigger screen, doesn't make that special.

But after watching the latest trailer, there's no pretence at all for me, I'm off the midnight showing on release day with a 40 year old friend of mine at the same 20's cinema that I saw Jedi in back in '83 :]

Edit: Not that its a bad thing what kids have got today, I'm not going off on a 'back in my day' type rant! It's just already a very different time to when I grew up.


He he, glad to hear it's not just me , and I have to admit I'm a bit jealous of you going to the midnight showing.

But my goodness yes I do remember how big a deal it was going to the cinema back in the day, and I agree it’s not a bad thing what kids have today, I just think it’s a real shame that there seems to be no sense of awe and excitement that accompanies that any more.

Talking about your dad's TV reminded me of the first time I was allowed to take the old black and white 'portable' TV (portable if you had a van) to my bedroom - didn't matter that is was black and white when the highlight of the week is 'Hammer house of horror'! but a TV in the bedroom when I was was that age was an opluent, futuristic, and decadent marvel - doesn't get any better than that!

Anyway sorry to go off subject - Yay Star Wars is coming!

I'm with you. I have a 5 and nearly 3 year old and it's incredible to think what they have available to them. We've got a 3TB drive plugged into the TV and loaded with all the older ones favourite TV shows and movies. It's all just there for her. When I was about eight I had a VHS of Star Wars recorded from the TV and another of Yellow Submarine. That was it. Later I'd stay up excited to see something like a Hammer movie or any sci-fi I could find on TV. Part of me likes that I've been able to expose my eldest to so much I love, part of me laments they'll never have the thrill of finally finding the gem they've been searching dusty video shops for. It's hard to see what can engage kids again in the way Star Wars did for me. The studios have become too good at knowing what we want and every week there's a new Marvel (or whatever) movie that would have been the most amazing thing to my 10 year old self, but is now just more of the same. It's nice watching things through my nearly 3 year old's eyes though. Because he hasn't been swamped by recent movies yet A New Hope is the pinnacle of mankind's achievements to him. At the moment he asks to watch it several dozen times a day and goes nuts whenever he sees Chewbacca in a shop. I guess one day it will be just another franchise to him.


Yes, you hit the nail on the head when you said ‘what they’ve got available to them’….

I think I might be a couple of years older than you, but I always remember what made it special for me was; cinema and even ‘a video’ back then exposed you to something that absolutely wasn’t available on normal TV, which isn’t really the case anymore, and that’s what made it so special – it was more scary, gruesome, more edgy, better special effects (which was a big deal back then (who here remembers trying to pause a video in an ‘old’ horror video at the gory bit for example (Omen 2) when the chap gets cut in half in the lift (elevator) etc. )).

The first ever video as a youngster I secretly watched with my pal was ‘The Manitou’, which blew our mind! I found it recently on youtube and kids these days would probably laugh at how pedestrian and unexciting it is…

Oh well, the joys of being old eh!


I know what you mean. I remember watching the Stallone movie "Cobra" and pausing it right when the van crushes the security guard against the elevator door. Because it all happens in a single shot, I was amazed by it.

I wonder if modern teens get the same visceral thrill from equivalent moments, or if they're now so common and extreme they just don't impress. Somehow I can't imagine them doing. The most paused shot (if you can call it 'paused' when the picture's violently shaking in that lovely old VHS way) of my childhood was the exploding head in Scanners. Also the melting dude getting hit by the car at the end of Robocop. I think the rest involved Sharon Stone or Phoebe Cates and probably shouldn't be mentioned.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 1252
It's bloody great! Stay away from the spoilers (people on social media are being terrible atm) and watch it as soon as you can!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:56 pm
Posts: 530
Location: Norwich
Sevenfest wrote:
It's bloody great! Stay away from the spoilers (people on social media are being terrible atm) and watch it as soon as you can!



This.... Star wars has come home !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm
Posts: 5402
Well I've just been to see it and I looked at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes afterwards. I think I was watching a different film. Nowhere near as good as the hype and not as good as Episode 4.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5233
flyboy10 wrote:
Well I've just been to see it and I looked at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes afterwards. I think I was watching a different film. Nowhere near as good as the hype and not as good as Episode 4.

8O
I thought that once something lived up to the hype before it, but obviously it's all down to personal opinions.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:59 pm
Posts: 2095
Saw it twice on opening day. Amazing film. Yeah, it's not 1000% perfect but it's an absolute blast. Ridley is brilliant as Rey, Boyega is great as Finn and I want a BB8!

Visually, the movie is mind-blowingly brilliant. Jakku's vast landscapes are epicly shot and there is a pivotal scene that is visually sublime.

The only issue I could say is that you are left with a lot of unanswered questions, but as this is the start of a new trilogy... That was expected.

9.5/10

_________________
[Space for rent]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3654
Stunning, really really stunning.

Just got back from watching it and I thought it lived up to the hype and possibly eclipsed it.

Anyone that goes to see this kind of film expecting to see multiple oscar winning acting, music, costumes etc is barking up the wrong tree. However, what the film does is entertain and wow from start to finish. I'm not going to give away any spoilers but the way the Millennium appears for the first time is really well done, plus the unexpected twist near the end was great.

I will be heading back to see it very soon.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1172
Location: Los Angeles, California
Balibari wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Biffa wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Biffa wrote:
He he, glad to hear it's not just me , and I have to admit I'm a bit jealous of you going to the midnight showing.

But my goodness yes I do remember how big a deal it was going to the cinema back in the day, and I agree it’s not a bad thing what kids have today, I just think it’s a real shame that there seems to be no sense of awe and excitement that accompanies that any more.

Talking about your dad's TV reminded me of the first time I was allowed to take the old black and white 'portable' TV (portable if you had a van) to my bedroom - didn't matter that is was black and white when the highlight of the week is 'Hammer house of horror'! but a TV in the bedroom when I was was that age was an opluent, futuristic, and decadent marvel - doesn't get any better than that!

Anyway sorry to go off subject - Yay Star Wars is coming!

I'm with you. I have a 5 and nearly 3 year old and it's incredible to think what they have available to them. We've got a 3TB drive plugged into the TV and loaded with all the older ones favourite TV shows and movies. It's all just there for her. When I was about eight I had a VHS of Star Wars recorded from the TV and another of Yellow Submarine. That was it. Later I'd stay up excited to see something like a Hammer movie or any sci-fi I could find on TV. Part of me likes that I've been able to expose my eldest to so much I love, part of me laments they'll never have the thrill of finally finding the gem they've been searching dusty video shops for. It's hard to see what can engage kids again in the way Star Wars did for me. The studios have become too good at knowing what we want and every week there's a new Marvel (or whatever) movie that would have been the most amazing thing to my 10 year old self, but is now just more of the same. It's nice watching things through my nearly 3 year old's eyes though. Because he hasn't been swamped by recent movies yet A New Hope is the pinnacle of mankind's achievements to him. At the moment he asks to watch it several dozen times a day and goes nuts whenever he sees Chewbacca in a shop. I guess one day it will be just another franchise to him.


Yes, you hit the nail on the head when you said ‘what they’ve got available to them’….

I think I might be a couple of years older than you, but I always remember what made it special for me was; cinema and even ‘a video’ back then exposed you to something that absolutely wasn’t available on normal TV, which isn’t really the case anymore, and that’s what made it so special – it was more scary, gruesome, more edgy, better special effects (which was a big deal back then (who here remembers trying to pause a video in an ‘old’ horror video at the gory bit for example (Omen 2) when the chap gets cut in half in the lift (elevator) etc. )).

The first ever video as a youngster I secretly watched with my pal was ‘The Manitou’, which blew our mind! I found it recently on youtube and kids these days would probably laugh at how pedestrian and unexciting it is…

Oh well, the joys of being old eh!


I know what you mean. I remember watching the Stallone movie "Cobra" and pausing it right when the van crushes the security guard against the elevator door. Because it all happens in a single shot, I was amazed by it.

I wonder if modern teens get the same visceral thrill from equivalent moments, or if they're now so common and extreme they just don't impress. Somehow I can't imagine them doing. The most paused shot (if you can call it 'paused' when the picture's violently shaking in that lovely old VHS way) of my childhood was the exploding head in Scanners. Also the melting dude getting hit by the car at the end of Robocop. I think the rest involved Sharon Stone or Phoebe Cates and probably shouldn't be mentioned.


Yeah, I think films today don't have those same sorts of moments. I think teens would still react to the "pause" moments of our time, though, since they would know about the lack (and sparse usage) of CGI back then.

I should give a shout out to One Upon A Time In Mexico for having a similar pause scene to the others mentioned earlier.

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4219
Just got home from Star Wars.

It was okay.

I will spoiler my thoughts.
Spoiler (click to show)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7776
mac_d wrote:
Just got home from Star Wars.

It was okay.

I will spoiler my thoughts.
Spoiler (click to show)


I liked the movie. Here is my reply:
Spoiler (click to show)

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5233
I've just been to see it for the second time (went with the girlfriend this time), and I enjoyed it just as much and saw a lot of stuff I missed first time round.

Spoiler (click to show)

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:53 pm
Posts: 1098
Location: Ireland
I just seen it for the second time and enjoyed it even more so than the first. I think I was trying to take in every single detail on the screen every second on the first viewing.
It is designed to be a roller coaster ride of action an emotion. It delivers perfectly.

My nephews (12 and 9 years of age) seen it last week and were blown away. They conveyed the same emotions as I felt seeing the original films when I was their age.
For me, this is the ultimate accolade, well done Mr. Abrams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm
Posts: 587
ok Iv seen it yer Its a good one! has the flavor of the first 3 films, but you can feel its moving on from them also, in the way I feel the plot will go, not so keen on the uber bad guy just made me think of harry potters nemesis, still nice funny moments and good practical effects all in all very good and they dident screw it up! because they got a fair balance between recreating the best of the older films but with a view to a new saga and story to tell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5233
chaz986 wrote:
ok Iv seen it yer Its a good one! has the flavor of the first 3 films, but you can feel its moving on from them also, in the way I feel the plot will go, not so keen on the uber bad guy just made me think of harry potters nemesis, still nice funny moments and good practical effects all in all very good and they dident screw it up! because they got a fair balance between recreating the best of the older films but with a view to a new saga and story to tell.

:lol: That's exactly who I thought of as well!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7548
I thought it was a solid start

Spoiler (click to show)


There is a theory going around about who Snoke may be too...

Spoiler (click to show)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm
Posts: 5402
Well, I can't hide my disappointment. I watched the film in 2D and I wonder if this is why I'm not gushing like everyone else seems to be. One thing I find very questionable is this idea that the film can be shown in IMAX. With some scenes shot in 35mm and others in 65mm, how can any of it conform to the IMAX standard of being shot on 70mm film transported vertically through the gate?

I know it's possible to project any size of film on to an IMAX sized screen but surely that doesn't mean you're actually watching it in IMAX, does it?

I'd be interested to know from anyone who's seen it in IMAX whether they noticed a reduction in quality compared with real IMAX film shot on an IMAX camera with 70mm film - or if the 3D effects caused sufficient misdirection to take your mind off it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3235
flyboy10 wrote:
Well, I can't hide my disappointment. I watched the film in 2D and I wonder if this is why I'm not gushing like everyone else seems to be. One thing I find very questionable is this idea that the film can be shown in IMAX. With some scenes shot in 35mm and others in 65mm, how can any of it conform to the IMAX standard of being shot on 70mm film transported vertically through the gate?

I know it's possible to project any size of film on to an IMAX sized screen but surely that doesn't mean you're actually watching it in IMAX, does it?

I'd be interested to know from anyone who's seen it in IMAX whether they noticed a reduction in quality compared with real IMAX film shot on an IMAX camera with 70mm film - or if the 3D effects caused sufficient misdirection to take your mind off it?

Because IMAX screens at nearly every cinema aren't real IMAX screens.

They are just bigger, slightly higher resolution digital projectors.

There are very few 70mm film IMAX screens for showing movies - I think there are less than 10 in the UK. After Nolan made such a fuss about IMAX for shooting the Dark Knight, it gave massive exposure to IMAX making the public aware of it. However, IMAX screens are very expensive and a different aspect ratio, 1.44:1 (non-widesceen) compared to the ~22:9 (super widescreen), so average cinemas can't accommodate them. However, fortunately, the general public has no idea what IMAX actually is. They just know that IMAX = amazing!

That gave IMAX a great idea, they could build an IMAX branded digital projector (not film) for use on a slightly larger screen and then sell it to cinemas who can then charge 50% more to tickets to go and see them. The public, having no clue what IMAX is or that fact that this is not real IMAX, gladly go and see it because the screen is noticeably bigger and because they've not been to a real IMAX screen so have no idea that they are being conned.

I went to the real IMAX cinema in London to see Interstellar (which was about 50% shot on real IMAX) and the scale is insane, and the difference in quality between the IMAX footage and the non IMAX is crazy. I could use an analogy of comparing a 17 inch SD TV to 50 inch 4K screen, but it's easier just to show an image:

Image
Source: http://nerdtears.com/your-mission-not-b ... fake-imax/

So, because the fake IMAX is a) a much much tinier screen, and b) a digital projector not film - it means they can show footage filmed on any format on it, whether it's an IMAX camera, 35mm film, or iPhone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
Well, I can't hide my disappointment. I watched the film in 2D and I wonder if this is why I'm not gushing like everyone else seems to be. One thing I find very questionable is this idea that the film can be shown in IMAX. With some scenes shot in 35mm and others in 65mm, how can any of it conform to the IMAX standard of being shot on 70mm film transported vertically through the gate?

I know it's possible to project any size of film on to an IMAX sized screen but surely that doesn't mean you're actually watching it in IMAX, does it?

I'd be interested to know from anyone who's seen it in IMAX whether they noticed a reduction in quality compared with real IMAX film shot on an IMAX camera with 70mm film - or if the 3D effects caused sufficient misdirection to take your mind off it?

Because IMAX screens at nearly every cinema aren't real IMAX screens.

They are just bigger, slightly higher resolution digital projectors.

There are very few 70mm film IMAX screens for showing movies - I think there are less than 10 in the UK. After Nolan made such a fuss about IMAX for shooting the Dark Knight, it gave massive exposure to IMAX making the public aware of it. However, IMAX screens are very expensive and a different aspect ratio, 1.44:1 (non-widesceen) compared to the ~22:9 (super widescreen), so average cinemas can't accommodate them. However, fortunately, the general public has no idea what IMAX actually is. They just know that IMAX = amazing!

That gave IMAX a great idea, they could build an IMAX branded digital projector (not film) for use on a slightly larger screen and then sell it to cinemas who can then charge 50% more to tickets to go and see them. The public, having no clue what IMAX is or that fact that this is not real IMAX, gladly go and see it because the screen is noticeably bigger and because they've not been to a real IMAX screen so have no idea that they are being conned.

I went to the real IMAX cinema in London to see Interstellar (which was about 50% shot on real IMAX) and the scale is insane, and the difference in quality between the IMAX footage and the non IMAX is crazy. I could use an analogy of comparing a 17 inch SD TV to 50 inch 4K screen, but it's easier just to show an image:

Image
Source: http://nerdtears.com/your-mission-not-b ... fake-imax/

So, because the fake IMAX is a) a much much tinier screen, and b) a digital projector not film - it means they can show footage filmed on any format on it, whether it's an IMAX camera, 35mm film, or iPhone.

What you say about the 'new' digital Imax projectors is often true. A lot of regular cinemas now claim Imax on normal size screens. It's also worth noting that many new theatres are fitted out with very big screens and 4k digital projectors, meaning the gap between Imax and 'normal' is both shrinking and blurring.

Personally I hate 3D and as long as the screen is a decent size I'm not bothered about it being huge. For a normal film (rather than those Imax showcase things) I find screens the size of the Waterloo Imax a bit too big. I want to be able to see the whole frame without moving my head.

Being a geek for this technical stuff I did my research and managed to see Force Awakens on the only screen in Europe using my preferred criteria: 2D 70mm film. Ironically it was at the Science Museum Imax, but that screen doesn't seem too big if you sit at the back of the theatre.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
For what it's worth I really enjoyed it. I've seen it three times (twice in the cinema and a DVD Screener I was lucky enough to bag) and have liked it more each time.

The way I see it there are a few real problems, but nothing terminal. For me the villain dynamic is weak. Kylo Ren is a great character but didn't have the gravitas to be the main villain. I'd have apprenticed him to a more senior and intimidating Sith. Hux was miscast, Phasma was underdeveloped and Snoke obviously only has a minor role here. I'd like to have seen a bit more Rey and Finn character development in place of one of the many action scenes, probably the Red Dwarf stuff that follows Han and Chewie's introduction (with CG tentacles chasing racial stereotypes around the Nostromo from Alien). That scene was pointless and awful. But these are criticisms you could level at any Hollywood movie and the original trilogy. The one thing I can understand totally turning someone off is the similarity to An New Hope. I don't mind it, but I can understand those that do. I certainly want the next one to be bolder.

People have complained about unanswered questions, coincidences and vagueries, but we all need to remember this is part one of a trilogy. We don't know what explanations are to come. For example Rey just happens to be neighbours with Lor San Takka (Max von Sydow's character who we see giving the map to Por Dameron in the first scene) and so is drawn into a plot she would apparently have known nothing about without a series of coincidence. R2 just happens to wake up when he's needed and just happens to have the rest of the map to Luke etc. But there are any number of scenarios that would explain this stuff. One theory I have is that, once the s£$t hit the fan, Luke placed Rey (his daughter) on Jakku for her own safety (hence her apparent anonymity), and left his friend Lor San Takka to watch over her. (Remember this is exactly what happened with Luke, Obi-Wan and Tattooine sixty years earlier.) Lor San Takka was instructed by Luke to give his part of the map to the resistance as soon as Rey's force awakens (i.e. when she comes of age with the force). That explains the coincidences involving timings and locations in the first act. Luke also sends R2 back to the resistance with instructions to wait for Rey's arrival, upon which time he is to reveal his portion of the map. That's why he wakes up when he does, it's when Rey arrives. Basically Luke has set some great scheme in motion and Rey is integral to it, but not until she comes of age. That's why that shot of Luke touching R2 with his metal hand is presented with such a weight of importance. It's representative of the part of the plan he programmed R2 with. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but it's one guess that makes complete sense and explains most of the coincidences.

I'm stretching now but it could also explain why the Falcon is where it is, and why Han found them so quickly. Luke could have engineered for the Falcon to be there (they say it hasn't flown for years) with the plan being for Rey and Lor San Takka to use it to get to the resistance (obviously Takka is killed before that can happen). And one big stretch further... Luke would know Han was searching for the Falcon and therefore that he would find Rey and Takka once they set off in it. He would then be able to take her to Maz who has been looking after Luke/Anakin's original light sabre whilst waiting for Rey. Who knows how things might work out and be justified? Just think what we learn from A New Hope on it's own, without the perspective and hindsight of Empire and Jedi: Vader is no more than Peter Cushing's henchman. We learn virtually nothing about the force. We don't know what this Senate thing is or who the Emperor is etc. etc. etc. And it's not like the originals don't have massive plot holes anyway. Tell me again why Leia is risking the only copy of the plans to the Death Star in order to go and pick up an old hermit and take him to Alderaan? Why? What can he do? Why does she have to get him herself? Why does she take the plans with her?

Anyway. I enjoyed it a lot. It can never be as close to my heart as the originals but considering expectations and the microscopic analysis I think it's a success.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4219
For some of the smaller plot contrivances, couldn't it be the Force? Either the Force itself or Luke/one of the dead Jedi ghosts who are more powerful than we can imagine?

For instance, if I stole the Falcon and needed a place to dump it out of the way, I might be influenced to pick Jakku over another outer rim planet by this mechanism.

No explaining how Po got off Jakku was a bit... odd to me. Okay, we don't really need to know. And it speeds the plot up later. If Po told Leia about Finn, that explains why she buys into him as a true defector rather than an infiltrator. And it means we don't need a big scene adding time to the movie that we don't really need. The audience can probably assume Finn isn't a spy, so we don't really need that bit of exposition within the film.

And regarding my Kylo Ren getting his pickle kicked in the finale, it has been pointed out to me that he had taken a shot for Chewie, then Finn gets a hit on him so he isn't at 100%. I still don't really think that adds up. And Kylo Ren not being pretty bad donkey goes against one key thing for me. He stopped a blaster shot in mid-air. Vader had his suit and deflected a shot from Han in Empire. This seemed like a much more powerful thing to do. I suppose it is arbitrary in that the same function is achieved to me, freezing it mid-air is much, much more bad donkey. He does some things that seemed really powerful which made it seem odd. Then again, Luke never had that much Lightsaber training really... but even with all these caveats, it seems like this bit of the film is a little flawed.

I wish they'd explain why people don't buy into the Jedi order and the Force existing. If Luke is 60ish in this film, it's only been 60 years since the Jedi were cutting about the galaxy. Sure, on some far out planets like Jakku etc they might not have had much presence - and 60 years is a lot of time. I could understand the Luke being a Jedi aspect might not have been such a big deal in the films simply because I'd guess blowing up the Death Stars was a much bigger event and more visible than what Luke did in RotJ. Do they not have history books in this universe? Han didn't buy it in ANH despite probably being alive at the time Jedi were active, and I think in backstory he is from a planet that isn't in the pickle end of nowhere (galactically speaking). For me, this has niggled at me since the prequels came out, and it does hamper my enjoyment a little as it just seems rather backwards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:53 pm
Posts: 1098
Location: Ireland
I think the Kylo Ren thing was well done in the movie. He is far from the finished article, relatively young and still emotional. He is being doubted by his Master. He is a 'fan boy' so to speak of Darth Vader. He is in short raw and volatile. He has potential to be extremely powerful if trained properly to the dark side.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7548
mac_d wrote:
I wish they'd explain why people don't buy into the Jedi order and the Force existing. If Luke is 60ish in this film, it's only been 60 years since the Jedi were cutting about the galaxy. Sure, on some far out planets like Jakku etc they might not have had much presence - and 60 years is a lot of time. I could understand the Luke being a Jedi aspect might not have been such a big deal in the films simply because I'd guess blowing up the Death Stars was a much bigger event and more visible than what Luke did in RotJ. Do they not have history books in this universe? Han didn't buy it in ANH despite probably being alive at the time Jedi were active, and I think in backstory he is from a planet that isn't in the pickle end of nowhere (galactically speaking). For me, this has niggled at me since the prequels came out, and it does hamper my enjoyment a little as it just seems rather backwards.

Wasn't Han's objection to the force existing? The force is referred to as a religion in ANH so i'd assume that while the Jedi themselves are known to be real, people doubt their ability & even the existence of the force.


As for the new ones, I cannot remember Han's exact line but is it possible that he could have been speaking specifically about how the empire was overthrown? I think its plausible that the emperor being a sith lord was never recorded as fact. I also think its plausible that Luke Skywalker could be considered a myth, as he may never have been formally credited with his part in overthrowing the empire.

I do agree though that people not knowing the Jedi were real, when only 60 or so years earlier there was a huge Jedi council on the republic capital planet, would be a bit odd. One explanation might be that Palpatine removed all official record of the Jedi ever existing. Leaving only those who were alive during the time of the Jedi to tell people about them, and thus 60 years on they have become legend rather than fact. I think that would make more sense if it was 100+ years after but 60+ isn't completely ridiculous I suppose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm
Posts: 5402
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
Well, I can't hide my disappointment. I watched the film in 2D and I wonder if this is why I'm not gushing like everyone else seems to be. One thing I find very questionable is this idea that the film can be shown in IMAX. With some scenes shot in 35mm and others in 65mm, how can any of it conform to the IMAX standard of being shot on 70mm film transported vertically through the gate?

I know it's possible to project any size of film on to an IMAX sized screen but surely that doesn't mean you're actually watching it in IMAX, does it?

I'd be interested to know from anyone who's seen it in IMAX whether they noticed a reduction in quality compared with real IMAX film shot on an IMAX camera with 70mm film - or if the 3D effects caused sufficient misdirection to take your mind off it?

Because IMAX screens at nearly every cinema aren't real IMAX screens.

They are just bigger, slightly higher resolution digital projectors.

There are very few 70mm film IMAX screens for showing movies - I think there are less than 10 in the UK. After Nolan made such a fuss about IMAX for shooting the Dark Knight, it gave massive exposure to IMAX making the public aware of it. However, IMAX screens are very expensive and a different aspect ratio, 1.44:1 (non-widesceen) compared to the ~22:9 (super widescreen), so average cinemas can't accommodate them. However, fortunately, the general public has no idea what IMAX actually is. They just know that IMAX = amazing!

That gave IMAX a great idea, they could build an IMAX branded digital projector (not film) for use on a slightly larger screen and then sell it to cinemas who can then charge 50% more to tickets to go and see them. The public, having no clue what IMAX is or that fact that this is not real IMAX, gladly go and see it because the screen is noticeably bigger and because they've not been to a real IMAX screen so have no idea that they are being conned.

I went to the real IMAX cinema in London to see Interstellar (which was about 50% shot on real IMAX) and the scale is insane, and the difference in quality between the IMAX footage and the non IMAX is crazy. I could use an analogy of comparing a 17 inch SD TV to 50 inch 4K screen, but it's easier just to show an image:


So, because the fake IMAX is a) a much much tinier screen, and b) a digital projector not film - it means they can show footage filmed on any format on it, whether it's an IMAX camera, 35mm film, or iPhone.

You must mean a real IMAX cinema! Surely the real IMAX cinema is in Bradford? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7776
Balibari wrote:
For what it's worth I really enjoyed it. I've seen it three times (twice in the cinema and a DVD Screener I was lucky enough to bag) and have liked it more each time.

The way I see it there are a few real problems, but nothing terminal. For me the villain dynamic is weak. Kylo Ren is a great character but didn't have the gravitas to be the main villain. I'd have apprenticed him to a more senior and intimidating Sith. Hux was miscast, Phasma was underdeveloped and Snoke obviously only has a minor role here. I'd like to have seen a bit more Rey and Finn character development in place of one of the many action scenes, probably the Red Dwarf stuff that follows Han and Chewie's introduction (with CG tentacles chasing racial stereotypes around the Nostromo from Alien). That scene was pointless and awful. But these are criticisms you could level at any Hollywood movie and the original trilogy. The one thing I can understand totally turning someone off is the similarity to An New Hope. I don't mind it, but I can understand those that do. I certainly want the next one to be bolder.

People have complained about unanswered questions, coincidences and vagueries, but we all need to remember this is part one of a trilogy. We don't know what explanations are to come. For example Rey just happens to be neighbours with Lor San Takka (Max von Sydow's character who we see giving the map to Por Dameron in the first scene) and so is drawn into a plot she would apparently have known nothing about without a series of coincidence. R2 just happens to wake up when he's needed and just happens to have the rest of the map to Luke etc. But there are any number of scenarios that would explain this stuff. One theory I have is that, once the s£$t hit the fan, Luke placed Rey (his daughter) on Jakku for her own safety (hence her apparent anonymity), and left his friend Lor San Takka to watch over her. (Remember this is exactly what happened with Luke, Obi-Wan and Tattooine sixty years earlier.) Lor San Takka was instructed by Luke to give his part of the map to the resistance as soon as Rey's force awakens (i.e. when she comes of age with the force). That explains the coincidences involving timings and locations in the first act. Luke also sends R2 back to the resistance with instructions to wait for Rey's arrival, upon which time he is to reveal his portion of the map. That's why he wakes up when he does, it's when Rey arrives. Basically Luke has set some great scheme in motion and Rey is integral to it, but not until she comes of age. That's why that shot of Luke touching R2 with his metal hand is presented with such a weight of importance. It's representative of the part of the plan he programmed R2 with. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but it's one guess that makes complete sense and explains most of the coincidences.

I'm stretching now but it could also explain why the Falcon is where it is, and why Han found them so quickly. Luke could have engineered for the Falcon to be there (they say it hasn't flown for years) with the plan being for Rey and Lor San Takka to use it to get to the resistance (obviously Takka is killed before that can happen). And one big stretch further... Luke would know Han was searching for the Falcon and therefore that he would find Rey and Takka once they set off in it. He would then be able to take her to Maz who has been looking after Luke/Anakin's original light sabre whilst waiting for Rey. Who knows how things might work out and be justified? Just think what we learn from A New Hope on it's own, without the perspective and hindsight of Empire and Jedi: Vader is no more than Peter Cushing's henchman. We learn virtually nothing about the force. We don't know what this Senate thing is or who the Emperor is etc. etc. etc. And it's not like the originals don't have massive plot holes anyway. Tell me again why Leia is risking the only copy of the plans to the Death Star in order to go and pick up an old hermit and take him to Alderaan? Why? What can he do? Why does she have to get him herself? Why does she take the plans with her?

Anyway. I enjoyed it a lot. It can never be as close to my heart as the originals but considering expectations and the microscopic analysis I think it's a success.

Interesting theory.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4219
I could buy most of that. However, it requires that they take the Falcon off planet, which they did not intend to do. And it seems like a pretty reckless plan on the whole. Though if Rey was trained as a Jedi, at least partially, it might explain why she could use her force powers so strongly in this film. If she was trained, jedi mind-wiped by Luke (therefore not a little girl as I think we were shown being dropped on Jakku) then she's overcoming that block rather than just randomly being able to use some pretty strong powers. I'd imagine it might be possible that this aspect was built in to the mind-wipe. And she'd also be trained in lightsaber skills so the ending would be less out of place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
mac_d wrote:
I wish they'd explain why people don't buy into the Jedi order and the Force existing. If Luke is 60ish in this film, it's only been 60 years since the Jedi were cutting about the galaxy. Sure, on some far out planets like Jakku etc they might not have had much presence - and 60 years is a lot of time. I could understand the Luke being a Jedi aspect might not have been such a big deal in the films simply because I'd guess blowing up the Death Stars was a much bigger event and more visible than what Luke did in RotJ. Do they not have history books in this universe? Han didn't buy it in ANH despite probably being alive at the time Jedi were active, and I think in backstory he is from a planet that isn't in the pickle end of nowhere (galactically speaking). For me, this has niggled at me since the prequels came out, and it does hamper my enjoyment a little as it just seems rather backwards.

Wasn't Han's objection to the force existing? The force is referred to as a religion in ANH so i'd assume that while the Jedi themselves are known to be real, people doubt their ability & even the existence of the force.


As for the new ones, I cannot remember Han's exact line but is it possible that he could have been speaking specifically about how the empire was overthrown? I think its plausible that the emperor being a sith lord was never recorded as fact. I also think its plausible that Luke Skywalker could be considered a myth, as he may never have been formally credited with his part in overthrowing the empire.

I do agree though that people not knowing the Jedi were real, when only 60 or so years earlier there was a huge Jedi council on the republic capital planet, would be a bit odd. One explanation might be that Palpatine removed all official record of the Jedi ever existing. Leaving only those who were alive during the time of the Jedi to tell people about them, and thus 60 years on they have become legend rather than fact. I think that would make more sense if it was 100+ years after but 60+ isn't completely ridiculous I suppose.

It's all very vague exactly what role the Jedi play(ed) in the universe and how well known that role was, even in places like Coruscant. A new Hope gives one impression, the rest of the original trilogy changes that slightly. Then in TPM Qui Gon tells us Jedi's will not fight wars, which is exactly what they were described by Obi Wan as doing (and exactly what they end up doing in the Clone wars). And I'm not convinced JJ Abrams is treating the prequels as canon law, all of which means we don't really know how well known the Jedi are. As mentioned, Jakku seems to be an outlying planet and Rey is a young loner on it. I can believe she would have no idea whether the force is real. Her only knowledge of it would come through unreliable people she doesn't know very well. It's much harder to believe Han wouldn't know in ANH. I guess there's an important difference between not knowing if Jedi are real and not knowing if (or which of) the supernatural skills attributed to them are real (I believe vicars exist but I don't believe in god).

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3235
flyboy10 wrote:
You must mean a real IMAX cinema! Surely the real IMAX cinema is in Bradford? ;)

The "real IMAX in London"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5233
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
You must mean a real IMAX cinema! Surely the real IMAX cinema is in Bradford? ;)

The "real IMAX in London"

Maybe flyboy should've said 'the UK's first and best IMAX in Bradford' ;)

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm
Posts: 5402
minchy wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
You must mean a real IMAX cinema! Surely the real IMAX cinema is in Bradford? ;)

The "real IMAX in London"

Maybe flyboy should've said 'the UK's first and best IMAX in Bradford' ;)

I kind of thought I had, but glad to see you agree with me ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 202
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wji-BZ0oCwg

Teaser trailer for Rogue One. Fully expecting the franchise to be milked until dry over the next few years but have to say I quite like the look of this one at least..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3654
Yes, it looks like a good spin off.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1836
medgar wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wji-BZ0oCwg

Teaser trailer for Rogue One. Fully expecting the franchise to be milked until dry over the next few years but have to say I quite like the look of this one at least..


Disney already have 6 movies planned, three sequel trilogy films, and the spinoff trilogy. It's going to be milked for all its worth.
That being said, it looks like the directors they've chosen are doing a good job, and it might not get tired quickly. The real test will be 5 films deep and if they can continue the same high levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3654
I know the James Bond films are fundamentally stories within themselves, but the basic concept is the same and they continue to bring out enjoyable films. Oscar winners no, (aside for the odd thing like music - how did this years win best song is beyond me though) but still fun films.

I don't go in to the cinema to watch any Star Wars film hoping that it will be worthy of an Oscar for anything. I go in for a couple of ours of excitement, fun, action and the odd twist in the tail. The Force Awakens achieved this without any doubt for me. I see no reason why this can't continue. The galaxy that is far far away has an almost endless supply of characters that have and can have a huge impact on the stories. These can be explored significantly if needed. Harry Potter continued for a large number of books and films. Again, I'm not stating this because those films obliterated all other films. Of course they didn't. Where they achieved is in the fun and excitement stakes. If Star Wars can do this, I will be more than happy.

I fear there are too many people in the world that feel the need to assume some kind of emotional ownership of the franchise and are quick to jump on any kind of bad acting, continuity issues etc. Well we can find these in most trilogies if you work hard enough. There's certainly enough websites that set out to do such things.

Personally I don't care about the odd issue like this. I just go in to each film and hope to enjoy it.

Bring it on I say.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1325
I've seen many movies over my many years. The thing is, once someone comes out with a unique plot line, or characters, or theme, everyone else picks up on it and after a few years, everyone has become desensitized to the presentation. When Clockwork Orange first came out, it blew everyone away, no one had ever seen such a film or characters. Now, it has been re-created so many times, we're all a little jaded. Many films are like that, they break new ground, open up the audience to a new experience in visuals or concepts or a way of thinking. And I really like it when I see a film that challenges me in something new.

When the very first Star Wars came out and I was watching it, the plot line was nothing but a western, known now as a space opera. You know, the hero rides into town, meets the bad guy(s) has a final fight, and he gets the girl. Just about every episode of the original TV series Star Trek was just that, Kirk always beat the bad guy and got the girl. But the original Star Wars had stunning visuals and introduced intriguing characters. That is what won me over.

So when I see just a re-hash of an old theme, be it Frankenstein (the creation turns against the creator, such as Terminator), or another space opera, I look to see what original or creative elements are woven into the movie.

I'm afraid that this new Star Wars movie left me very disappointed, It had expanded graphics, but much more than that, it was more of a reunion of old characters and very few new and unique ones. The plot line was chaotic and did not make sense. He just happens to run across a girl who will obviously be proven to be an offspring of one of the original characters, he just happens to run across the old robots, and he just happens to run across the Millenium Falcon just sitting there unused for years, but ready for flight. Maybe for those fans that desire to re-connect with the original characters they had their "oohhh" moments when each old character was introduced. And Hans Solo is seriously wounded and falls down a huge shaft to fall out of sight? Even that was done before.

One of the most disappointing movies I have ever seen.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1836
Blinky McSquinty wrote:

I'm afraid that this new Star Wars movie left me very disappointed, It had expanded graphics, but much more than that, it was more of a reunion of old characters and very few new and unique ones. The plot line was chaotic and did not make sense. He just happens to run across a girl who will obviously be proven to be an offspring of one of the original characters, he just happens to run across the old robots, and he just happens to run across the Millenium Falcon just sitting there unused for years, but ready for flight. Maybe for those fans that desire to re-connect with the original characters they had their "oohhh" moments when each old character was introduced. And Hans Solo is seriously wounded and falls down a huge shaft to fall out of sight? Even that was done before.

One of the most disappointing movies I have ever seen.


Somewhat in their defence, Lucasfilm tried the 'introduce new characters and plots' in the prequel trilogy which was dreadful. I can understand why Disney, having taken over the rights want to play it safe with the first one. If the fans hated TFA the way it was en masse, they knew not to make any more films. Their spinoff films starting with Rogue One seem to be more unique character and plot wise, so that might be the way they take the franchise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3654
Isn't the entire point of a sequel to fundamentally link it to the previous film(s)?

Not bringing back characters, spaceships and new related characters would be bonkers surely!

I was one of I am sure millions of people who loved the way the Millenium Falcon was brought in to the film.

Imagine a Back to the Future sequel set 20 years later from episode 3. Would people seriously not want the DeLorean to be in it even if there was a more modern way of time travel? I doubt it. Hover boards would still be wanted by a lot of fans, myself included.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7776
It's not that Star Wars ever had original plot. In original movie princess is captured but bad guys and good guys need to rescue her and fight evil forces. The scenery was just unique in Star Wars. In newest Star Wars, beside Han Solo, the old characters didn't play any meaningful role. I thought the new characters were also nice, though the "evil" one aren't as good as the "good" one. The story wasn't very original, but it's still way better than the silly senate meetings and politics in prequels. If you want to see original story generally don't watch such a blockbusters like Star Wars. Beside that there are many unanswered questions after watching ep 7, so there is still potential for surprising plot.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group