|
Caedus posted:In one of the first EU book series, the first thing the Evil Guy Trying to Restore the Empire does is decide who his best personnel are and clone the poo poo out of them for future battles. He also gives as many pilots as he can the better TIE fighters with shields installed.  !One of my favourite little "inner workings of the empire" story was in a short story collection detailing the life and times of every tiny character you saw in the background of a scene in the first movie for 0.2 seconds (because of course that exists). It's about THE STORMTROOPER who uh has a line. I think it was the one in the desert going "hey we found the escape capsule but it's empty?!?!?!". Well, his story starts on the imperial training facility planet which is a strange planet because it has ALL terrains (and not just desert, jungle, lava from polar cap to polar cap, go figure!). So they can train. In all terrains. With their All-Terrain Attack Transporters! (the walkers from the second movie for the less-nerds). He runs a session on the "wheel" of such a thing, walks happily over mountains etc., then gets attacked by a bunch of small fighters. They fly between his legs! He can't do poo poo! So he's like wait a minute, flips a few switches, the walkers bends its knees and the fighters can no longer go between the legs. He wins. Turns out it was a simulation. He's like "hey commanding officer Veers, wasn't that like totally awesome of me to recognize and battle that incredibly glaring flaw our giant walkers have?!" Veers is like "yeah. Flaw. In our glorious empire walkers. Mhm." And this is why our random stormtrooper ends up doing menial poo poo in the armpit of the galaxy, Tattooine. See, it's funny, because it's actually pretty close to real life, I'd imagine. Addendum: Veers is named because he's the dude you see for a second in the cockpit of a walker in the movie - the one Luke climbs up to and grenades. REFERENCES.
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 15:11
|
|
to the extreme, but if you wanted to know the specifics of the technology, it's probably all online now.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
ducttape posted:In episode 4, the Millennium Falcon is barely able to keep ahead of star destroyers, and tie fighters swarm all over it. In 5 an 6, it flies circles around star destroyers, and dogfights with tie fighters. I can understand George Lucas doing this (he seems like the kind of guy who doesn't let internal consistency get in the way of the movie he wants to make), but I have never heard it even mentioned by the Star Wars fans who can explain in detail why making the Kessel run in 12 parsecs is an indication of its speed.  .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
It is completely baffling to me that the House stuff was not made up wholesale for a whimsical nonsense wizard world  .
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
No German will be caught dead driving automatic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:He killed his master, big difference. Immortal != invulnerable. There is always something to improve, and he wants to be the one to do that. People squabbling over trade treaties? Minor wars breaking out, not even revolutions, just factions? He cracks down on that hard and makes sure that noone will ever squabble over trade again. He'll centralize trade completely, tries out communism, basically. Doesn't work? Try out something completely new! He can dictate how the entire economy is run in the entire universe. He'll find something that works perfectly eventually. Or not. It doesn't matter. There's always something to do!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Snoop Radley posted:Is 40 Days 40 Nights the movie where he makes the love interest orgasm by touching her with a flower or blowing on her or some nonsense? ~so sensual~ The actual scene is him using a rose petal to rub her through her clothes. It's very PG, you see. You might of course be thinking of something different. There's a lot of poo poo out there...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:The Y-Wing bombers in Star Wars make no sense. They are flying in space so why do they drop their bombs like WW2-era bombers? It's not like there is gravity. Yeah it looks really cool but they could just launch their bombs like missiles just as easily and probably from a safer distance. They also have a second gunner and are equipped with electronics-disabling ion cannons!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:Saw 2 is half of a serious psychological horror film glued onto a bunch of demented horseshit where Jigsaw has somehow trapped a bunch of people in an airtight, completely inescapable house filled with nerve gas without anyone noticing. Didn't help that I saw (no, no!) the two movies with a friend who was reaaaally into them and wanted to rewatch the series with me, but I told him hard no after the second. He insisted that we at least watch the first scene of Saw V which was his favorite torture-execution and I did watch that, and turns out it's some guy trapped under a pendulum that goes lower and lower and will slice him up if he doesn't...dunno, crush his own fingers or something? Well he manages to gather the courage to crush his fingers, then the pendulum slices him up regardless slowly and gruesomely. I was like "what the gently caress dude" and my friend was like "no man see in THIS movie the traps ALWAYS kill because it's not the original Jigsaw!!!". Brilliant. He also really liked Human Centipede and A Serbian Movie. We're not friends anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:The odd numbered Saw movies up to 5 are pretty good and the even numbered ones are really bad (I mean, at least 2 is, I don't remember a single scene from 4 except I think the twist is that it's happening during another one of the movies which was kind of interesting.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:There's a deleted scene where Luke is constructing his lightsaber and it uses a special crystal to power the device. I'm glad they got rid of it because nothing makes Star Wars more boring than bringing in more technical details like midichlorians or the light speed fuel in Solo. I was confused when the scene wasn't in the movie because it was quite interesting, the technical details, you know? I was a weird kid and wanted to study engineering, went on to do that, hated it and became a cool chemist instead. Now I know the crystal stuff is bullshit. Back to teenage me, however, I owned all the Star Wars expanded universe books and there's a series with the next generation of teenage Jedi apprentices and their wacky hijinks, and they all go on elaborate quests to find crystals that are ~just right~ and ~special~ for them. Chewbacca's son has to lasso the tonsil stones (crystal!) off a wookie-eating giant plant on their jungle homeworld (seriously), one of the Solo kids uses the Force to pull the crystal out of a freaking gas giant's core. And there's a cool and troubled warrior princess Jedi who walks into a geyser in-between eruptions to chip a crystal off the walls. She overestimates herself and it's chipped but she builds the saber anyway out of a dragon tooth she hand-carves or whatever, then turns it on and it blows her loving hand off because she's bad at building stuff and rash and that's a super important message, don't be a loving idiot and ask someone good at electronics for help when making murder weapons at the age of 15. Anyway I loved the callback to the very first Star Wars novel because I was a weirdo nerd, and I guess I still am because how do I remember all of this???????
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:There's a trap about to be sprung.  . I do remember now that everyone called Lowbacca "Lowie" because Chewbacca is "Chewie" of course and that's just stupid.To get away from the pure Star Wars derail, I used to think back when I read those novels religiously that books are always superiour to their movie versions (yes, even the Episode 4-6 novelizations, but barely and out of "principle") because you can have all those details in books and details are important and the movie inevitably cuts that super important fact, and how could they. Nowadays I realize that this is not a flaw of the medium, but one of its biggest strengths, because a good movie will just show you what a books takes pages to tell. Or useless chaff gets rightfully cut, because there's a whole lot of that in most of the trash books I used to read. To bring it back to Star Wars though, a probably rational irritation: I made it a point to read the Episode I novelization before watching the movie because see above, and I was super, super disappointed with Episode I's opening (you know, like everyone, but bear with me) because the book cold opens with a Pod Race. In the movie there's like one line to the effect of "Anakin races regularly but he never gets to the finish line because assholes keep wrecking his racer", and they detail that in the book and it's awesome. I get that having two big race setpieces would be really dumb in a movie, but drat, the alternative is not that much better. What did help me in actually enjoying Episode I the first time was that Jar Jar isn't nearly as annoying in the book (helps that you don't hear his voice and see his design), with more time devoted to him actually helping out and being somewhat clever when his life and that of his friends is on the line. So I came in with a positive impression of his character, and while movie Jar Jar is a grating buffoon, all those scenes were also in the book, so it really didn't bother me that much.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
It's very hard to judge "overall" enjoyment of an even somewhat divisive movie nowadays. Let alone a Star Wars one, which is mired in so much meta discussion that has nothing to do with the quality itself (how does it compare to the Prequels? How many ~females~ are in there? Is the Disney marketing behemoth to be shunned on principle?). I think it's borderline impossible to separate discussion of the movie itself from all of those underlying issues people might have with it, which can absolutely cement their opinion on it being awesome/terrible before they have even seen it, if you're talking strictly online discussions. And sadly, that is becoming louder and more visible even in traditional offline media and normal discussions between people on a lunch table ("I saw a YT review of the movie and they made some interesting points..."). I think you'd be best suited to look at review aggregates by hopefully professional reviewers who've been paid to try and objectively judge movies on their own merits for decades, not a flavor-of-the-month YT screamy rear end in a top hat who's a fan/non-fan and doing this to cater to his own fans/non-fans. Similarly useless are box office numbers tbh, because some people will watch everything in a given franchise no matter its quality, or everything that's marketed enough so they believe they have to see it because everyone does, and then they can talk about it next day at work. The "well a lot of people watched it so it must be good" argument falls apart completely once you reach the momentum of a franchise like Star Wars, unless they gently caress up SO BAD that people actually stop watching it because enough colleagues and sources they pay attention to confirm that yes, it's okay to admit that it sucked donkey balls and the next one will not be better, so why bother. Overall, I therefore think the question of "so did more people like or dislike it" cannot be answered at all and you'd be best served with two metrics: - did people you watched it with personally and/or you talk about it in real life like it or not? How do the opinions of those real, actual people who you hopefully like interacting with measure up to your own? Is there at least an interesting discussion to be had? - did you like it? For which reasons? Do those reasons matter? Do you think you should feel embarrassed for having the "wrong" opinion? And for the record because that's actually on topic, I really disliked TLJ for what I hope are personal reasons which are not coloured by the insane wanking on both the "loved it, best thing ever" and "worse than the Prequels, somehow" sides online. But you never know how much that influences you subliminally so whatever. I'll give you two things I disliked of which I've seen one addressed often (but rarely as the central critique) and one that's almost never talked about. a) Pacing. Many scenes go on for way too long with little reason because they ultimately affect very little in the overall plot (yes, I do hate the casino sequence), while others are almost painfully short, robbing them of gravitas...and the plot of logic. For example, it makes no sense that characters should just be able to pop out and in a desparate chase sequence the way it is shown, but I think you could explain that easily with a few sentences. Like "one small ship will slip by their scanners but if we all take small ships to flee at once, they'll notice, also we don't have enough small ship". Whatever. People on the "it's good" side say because you can come up with an explanation, it doesn't matter, people on the "it's bad" side say there can be no explanation, it makes no sense to begin with. I think the fact that you HAVE to come up with an explanation is bad, and it's not like the movie is afraid to have ANY kind of exposition, it just uses it in the wrong places. Hence, this is for me a pacing issue, not a logic issue. Also pacing: the movie has multiple climactic events and battles that feel like they should have some finality to them, but they don't because the runtime isn't over. Sometimes, those events anti-climax themselves (the Leia thing) even which I've rarely seen, and I think for good reason. Unless it's a comedy, of course. Which brings me to my biggest problem b) Tone. Within ten minutes, you go from a "your mom" joke and one guy who's overconfident and brash to a fault somehow succeeding just because he's so good at stuff, laughing as he blows up cannon after cannon effortlessly, to a desparate, doomed to fail bombing run with a huge number of casualties, climaxing in a noble sacrifice which sets up a huge trauma later in the movie. This is jarring as hell and I find is super weird that it's rarely talked about. It happens so often! Incredibly dramatic events are juxtaposed with weird quips at the most awkward moments, you have Rey almost lose control of her feelings, the Dark Side might take her...! But the actual end of the scene is a stone she knocked loose destroying some food or whatever by weird fish-nuns. Like am I supposed to laugh now? Every time tension is built up, it's released too early, too stupidly, drama is never allowed to just linger and the action scenes therefore never feel like they matter because you know they're just gonna deflate the suspense soon. Or have already at the start of the scene. You can absolutely write a movie that blends comedy and action and high stakes and drama, many Bond films do so quite well (and some fail, see most of Roger Moore's run), a more recent example is Kingsman. Or you go bleaker without being grimdark, but stick to it. Rogue One did that quite well, I didn't like it that much either but tone was not the issue. There were comedic moments, but, like, sarcastic, dry, dark humour - compare its comic relief character (the black droid) with TLJ's (the round droid). I was watching TLJ with my wife and we both started having the same reactions to the scenes as they came up: we cringed at the attempted humour and laughed when the movie tried going for drama because it seemed goofy of the script to even try to make us care after all the other nonsense it had pulled before. I personally enjoyed the experience because I like laughing at bad stuff, but it was quite terrible at its probably intended purpose. Oh, and I'm only mentioning my wife because she's the only person I've talked with about the movie in real life (most of my other friends or colleagues aren't frequent movie-goers at all), so to follow my initial argument, I think TLJ sucked because I personally thought it was stupid and the only real life person opinion I got from it was that it was stupid as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 10:54
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The Executor (so named because it Executes the Emperor's will) was destroyed thanks to a pretty specific chain of events and under conditions such a vessel would rarely be found to fight in. (Inside a massive gravity well.) wait are those windows painted on? oh f-" And it leads to the death of an important character (who, by the way, uses her rammed-to-poo poo doomed ship as a counter-ram), again, because they simply couldn't conceive of the tactic. The other example is when the good guys salvage a super star destroyer (yes, like the Executor) they overcame in a previous fight, and it's treated as super awesome that now they can use such an awesome giant ship! But the enemies of the day have an even bigger ship because it's Star Wars and the EU and it's dumb, and the super star destroyer is hopelessly outmatched, and the giant enemy ship is tearing it up, large chunks of the hull are being shot away...until the enemy realizes that it's all just hastily plated on, meant to be stripped away in big explosions that look like they're doing a lot of damage, but actually the core of the destroyer has been taken out and replaced by what amounts to an 8 km long solid steel rod which is pointed directly at their supership. I think this is also a suicide attack in the end because the constant shot barrage would drive the ram off course and a computer can't course correct on its own, obviously  .I think overall the EU and pretty much all of Star Wars "works" on the principle that outside of what is happening on screen, nobody reads books or thinks about things, so whenever someone comes up with a tactic or idea, it's novel, genious, takes everyone off guard, saves the day and then they never use it again because the next time it's not a surprise, and only surprises work because they're dramatic. "Why don't they always do this" is a completely pointless question to ask, because them planning every battle super strategically and using only the most efficient tactic would be boring, so they don't do that. quote:I really don't like this attitude; the amount of people that dislike TLJ because of ~females~ is probably in the dozens, but for some reason the larger dialog seems to focus on them almost exclusively. There are so many problems with the movie that have nothing to do with the sex of the characters, and to pretend that they don't exist to punch down a He-Man woman-hater strawman is disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Kwanzaa Quickie posted:I don’t recall offhand seeing any droid-helmed large ships in any SW films, so correct me if I’m wrong here. That would mean that the answer to “Why don’t they do that all the time?” with regard to kamikaze attacks is that you’d need a volunteer to pilot the suicide ship. And if you don't like Star Wars, why do you spend so much time "proving" that it's nonsense? Finally, as well, because Star Wars is much more magical in nature than other sci-fi things, you can always bullshit up another explanation if you really need one to be happy. Example: Megillah Gorilla posted:In the Halo series (I think it was), you can use a hyperdrive to blow the poo poo out of things. And now let's go meta: it's also a symbol about how little the Empire values individualism and the lives of the individuals, versus how much the Rebels care. It's very much good vs. evil. You could as easily write a story where the desparate masses finally rise up against the few mighty elites, but it's still a struggle because the masses have only manpower but little tech, so they need to resort to suicide tactics and winning by numbers. But Star Wars is not that kind of story, not that kind of message, so the imagined tech follows the needs of the story and message, not the other way around.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Doomsayer posted:That's something that's always bugged me about Star Wars: in all the movies and games (including KOTOR 2! Which discusses the lightsaber/gun thing as a central story thing!) has nobody ever considered a lightsaber and a blaster? Seems like the perfect combo for Gymnastic Space Wizards. But! He was actually not good in the Force, so it made "sense" that he was an undiscovered Sensitive for so long, all he could really do was push tiny buttons with a lot of concentrations and, indeed, fly his ship even better. So he did get a Lightsaber but still used the Blaster because he was used to that, and iirc custom-built his Lightsaber to do cheap tricks like extend the blade up to triple its length so he could win without actually having to learn how to swordfight. Which is far too smart for Star Wars, honestly. Of course, because the entire "Jedi all along" idea wasn't dumb enough, eventually he discovered that he was actually really STRONG in the Force (can't have a non super duper powered protagonist, after all), just not for the typical Force stuff: he could instead use the Force to absorb and redirect energy. So he became functionally immune to Blaster shots because he could just use them as fuel to power crazy Force lightning poo poo. Convenient for all the shootouts that he was getting into because, you know, Blaster user. Still dumb fun. It's Corran Horn for those In The Know (and I'm waiting for 20 correction posts for the tiny details I got wrong off 10-year-old memories). EDIT: lol your edit was spot on hahaha
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Because Hannibal didn't design a flaw into all the Imperial ships, just the death star??? It's still pretty weird to ask "why don't they make their pilots ram their ships into the enemy more often", not even the Empire does that and they're the bad guys.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Murphys Law posted:It was one of the New Jedi Order books. Wheat Loaf posted:Well, surely they could programme a fighter's computer and fly it by remote control? Or they could use projectiles instead of lasers? The star destroyer doesn't seem manoeuvrable enough to avoid that and they have targeting computers (and sometimes even the Force!) that could probably ensure it hits its mark.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Murphys Law posted:Ok, I know what you're thinking of. The Lusankya was Isard's SSD in the Rogue Squadron series. (and Isard returned in a late book iirc, complicating the issue further) Morpheus posted:I don't know why anyone gives a poo poo about Snoke. Of course, the EU then goes "aha, not so simple!" and chronicles another 15-20 years of mopping up the remnants of the Empire which did not instantly crumble to dust just because their leader died. But for the movie, things were neatly wrapped up because Emperor = Empire = bad guy. It's like everyone wants to go back in time to assassinate Hitler, as if that had actually caused Germany to instantly be denazified. In TFA, though, the big government is actually the good guys, and the New Order are the "plucky rebels". Snoke is more someone like Osama bin Laden, leading an insurgency of what amounts to terrorists from some far-off corner of the world. That's not an archetypal role (yet?), and he obviously is NOT all the New Order is about - it is far more exemplified by the Hux/Kylo dynamic, young regressive idiots tempted by "the simple answers" going against The System, Man. It's fascist in nature, but they haven't won yet. So it's more like Hitler ca. 1923, trying to (irl vainly, at that point) overthrow the legitimate Republic. That's a more complex character, he's not pure evil already-committed-the-Holocaust yet. So asking yourself "who IS this dude, how did he get where he is? Did he FOUND the New Order, or is he just their spiritual leader?" is imho quite legitimate. TLJ immediately establishing the New Order as already having won - somehow* - and setting Snoke up, during the movie, as Basically The Emperor completely invalidates everything that TFA set up about the New Order and what he could be. If you want to talk about subverting expectations, TFA already did that by flipping the initial power dynamic. TLJ re-flipping it and going "your expectations of this being anything BUT plucky rebels against fascist empire were wrong!!!" is just...weird, imho. *as I said in my initial post in this derail debacle, imho you can explain anything in Star Wars because it's magic, and you also never should go the Midichlorian route of overexplaining, but just "leaving it up to imagination" seems ill-advised when it makes the viewer - me in this case - wonder the first ten minutes "wait, why are the Republic dudes suddenly losing?". The very first sentence of the text crawl is "The New Order reigns", and we've never been shown how and why before. After those ten minutes I went "okay I guess that's just how it is then...", but oh boy was that a rough start for me and it didn't really get better.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:And then you have a cool conflict between understandable characters. Instead of just "yeah this emperor guy is literally pure evil, he's basically Satan on a spaceship" re: fuel, I guess I've still got too many EU memories lingering (o rly), it didn't bother me at all because there they constantly pull new poo poo out of their rear end. Like "oh no the X-Wing's been hit! Now I've lost my inertia compensator!" "what does it do" "compensate inertia! That means a too tight turn will make me black out from the G forces!" "so...ANY turn in space?" "naw it's the equivalent of an action hero getting stabbed in the shoulder, they can still fight but now it makes them wince when they hit someone" But that's fine! Obviously the inertia stabilizer never matters until it breaks, so why would they mention it beforehand? Also, it makes sense that SOMETHING compensates for them doing tight turns at ridiculous speeds. Then if you think about it for a second, a) having it off means that you would normally be massively impaired and b) it's ludicrous magic technology anyway, but whatever! Don't think about it! Fuel works the same way, it's just less magical. Maybe that is the problem. Or people would bitch about inertial stabilizers if they started mentioning them in the movies  .
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
I have zero issues with the space chase setup because as I said, don't think too hard, but man you can't put the burden of loving research on people who have plot problems come into their head while watching a movie.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
I like pretty much every Marvel movie but I also quite like Ang Lee's Hulk, I watched it after I'd seen quite a few MCU movies but I still enjoyed it a lot. I don't think it's a superhero movie at all, though, so the comparison is a little faulty. For the record: still haven't gotten around to watch Hulk with Edward Norton.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:One persistent complaint (which I don't think is very good) about Harry Potter I've seen a lot lately is that there wasn't enough worldbuilding. Harry Potter has problems but I never thought lack of worldbuilding was one of them. Semi troll option: Lord of the Rings. Quite honestly though, there is a LOT of worldbuilding in especially the first LotR books, like half of it, and when I tried to re-read it years after enjoying it twice before already as a kid, I simply couldn't get through that half. It's pretty much the point of the book though, showing you how beautiful and wondrous Middle Earth is and how much is at stake, and contrary to most fanfiction writes, Tolkien is wicked good at it. Just not my cup of tea anymore. And the thing is, Tolkien did way the gently caress more worldbuilding in the background, see: Silmarillon, he just didn't put any of that (or rather, just hints at fictional history and past events and societies) into the main books. I think most authors have a relatively clear idea of how pretty much everything in their world works, but good authors have a sense for how much of that is actually relevant and/or interesting to the reader. And also the story they want to tell. Tolkien never talks much about how magic works and what it can do and its limitations, because it's not the point of the story at all. Rowling also does not because it's still not the point of the story. I mean, there's literally entire chapters dedicated to how much Harry does not care at all about the nitty gritty details of potion ingredients and spell movements + words, he's gonna learn how to do it until he can do it and that's it for him. And Rowling is right to treat magic like this, and many fanfiction writers are wrong to think the story would be better from Hermione's point of view with countless paragraphs detailing how she learns the exact science behind magic, because guess what? That's an oxymoron. And boring.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I used to associate it with TV Tropes, because I remember TV Tropes used to have a bunch of pages created by members of the site about stories which they said they were writing or were going to write, but in most cases hadn't actually written. Essentially summarising the events of a story that didn't actually exist except in their heads, or perhaps in the form of notes. First, I've never actually read any fanfiction myself. I've only heard from other people that it's rife with over-worldbuilding, and that always made perfect sense to me, because I mean I've seen quoted excerpts of terrible fanfiction. If the brunt of useless fluff worldbuilding is actually in fanfiction ideas, I can believe that for sure. Second, I've written fanfiction, and I did finish it - started when I was 16, and wrote on and off until I finished it 10 years later, just because I wanted to prove to myself that I could. And as practice. It is about a videogame with a terrible story, and I used the "videogame" part to my advantage - leaving out a LOT of place descriptions because people who played the game were my audience, so they'd already know how poo poo looked like, right? - and I absolutely resented the second part because it "forced" me to make sense out of the nonsensical world and actions of its inhabitants. Because I decided to follow the ingame story, just with my own characters, like a dumbass, and there's just the flimsiest reasons in game for the protagonist to go places. I took that as a challenge, but hoo boy it was not fun at times, which I realize is entirely against the idea of doing something like this in the first place. But fanfiction writers are weird, crazy people with stupid motivations. I think my growing resentment for that game world saved me from trying to overexplain because you just gotta give up at some point, but I did try to wrench things into my version of the story sometimes, which DID lead to overexplaining. As said, started at 16, not practiced, that's an easy trap to fall into. So it makes sense!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Liar, nobody likes Hulk when he's Ang Lee. And at the end, the fight against Abomination (right?) was very entertaining, and also quite well shot. I watched Batman v Superman semi-recently as well and Doomsday in that is like night and day. Every punch in Hulk is far more weighty, the camera allows itself to linger on both monsters as they struggle with each other so you can actually take in the designs and watch them muscles bulge, you even got some great facial expressions in there. Whereas in BvS it's all quick cuts, very "strategic" lighting (as in, you often can't see poo poo), wild camera sweeps and Doomsday is constantly exploding, flooding the screen with particle effects so it's even harder to tell what's going on. My biggest issue is that the movie lacks an emotional core that I really, really enjoyed in Ang Lee's Hulk. I liked that they tried for the "Hulk struggle" in Banner by giving him basically PTSD flashbacks, but those didn't amount to anything, and I loving hated Liv Tyler's character. To get away from this being a mini-review, it's something people have criticized before in this thread but drat was that a picture-perfect example: Banner was out of the picture, basically dead, she moved on, found another guy, and the very second Banner shows up alive, she completely ditches her current boyfriend. It's ludicrously jarring how quickly she does it, they don't even interact anymore after she sees Banner for the first time, there's not a single scene where she's cold to him all of the sudden or he gets to complain or whatever. And he is in the movie for two more scenes - where he is allowed a few seconds (after someone already said he is) to show himself to be the nicest, most reasonable guy. Now, it would also be wrong to have him turn out to be a bastard who also cheats and possibly kicks puppies in his free time because that'd be super cheap, but this way is also terrible. How absurdly cold-hearted is Betty? Am I supposed to root for her and Banner to get it on? Thank God for his greenballs protecting me from the most awkward sex scene imaginable. It was torture having her interact with him in any scene because I desperately wanted her to simply care for her old colleague and lover but she had moved on after all, but no, she was throwing herself at Banner from the word go. Just terrible. And then she even undercuts the awesome fight scene at the very end by preventing Hulk from killing Abomination. What? Why? There was not a single moment on screen where she feared for Banner's humanity, or where he expressed concern that if Hulk is allowed to kill he might never turn back or whatever. You can maybe infer that more or less retroactively, or by outside knowledge of the character, but from within the movie, it makes zero sense. Now they have an alive Abomination to deal with, a Hulk loving off to God knows where, and she doesn't even get to bone Banner after all, so what's the loving point? Enjoy awkwardly going back to your wonderful, kind therapist boyfriend, I guess. Also also, really didn't like Edward Norton in the role. Nothing specific, but I guess I just can't buy him as a vulnerable scientist trying his very best not to freak out. Ruffalo is so much better, it's unbelievable. Good call by Marvel to change the casting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Joss whedon is a loving genius
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Chewbacca is a nickname with a really long and convoluted in-joke backstory that Han gave up on explaining because you really had to be there and also have a detailed knowledge of Kashyyk pop culture.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
I really liked Man of Steel because I thought it was a very interesting and refreshing take on Superman as a character. Saying that MoS' Superman is completely different to any other Superman interpretation is absurd; it sets him up with the exact same backstory every classic Superman version has: orphan of a dying planet, raised by a down-to-earth American couple in Kansas who instill Values in him, extremely strong to the point of Godhood, has a secret identity meant to protect the people around him, and that matters a lot to him because he's a really, really good guy. The only real difference is that while previous incarnations of Superman were focused on the question of "HOW can he protect the people around him using his powers?", Snyder instead asks "CAN he protect the people aroudn him using his powers?", and yes, of course that is a more cynical take, but why is that automatically less valid? MoS' Superman is still an extremely good person, he just struggles more with trying to find out what The Right Thing To Do is. That's an approach that's almost laughably facile - like, "great power! But can you use it responsibly???" is not a novel idea, eh? But for Superman, it seems to be exactly that. My biggest issue with MoS was actually that the final action scene dragged on for way too long. Over-indulgent. People dragged it for how much random destruction of property there was but I don't care, I just felt like they could have cut half of it and still had a good, visceral, high-stakes fight at their hands. Still, I was really pleasantly surprised when I saw MoS after years of only reading hot takes about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
I thought Thor 1 was fine (2 is better), but it was driving me completely batshit with its dutch angles everywhere. Look at the first image in the scene linked about. It's skewed. Why do this for a random establishing shot of a diner?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Clearly, (Endgame) a Steve Rogers from a very similar timeline C went back in the past of timeline A to be Peggy's husband and father of her children. And my personal gripe with Endgame which I don't think has been asked here yet (unless it was resolved like, 10 pages ago, I only went back 5): How did evil!Nebula bring Thanos' ship into the future? Hasn't it been shown before that you need Pym Particles on the person doing the time jump, slotted into their special suit? The only thing I can think of is that they took the vial they nicked from good Nebula, figured out how it worked, reverse-engineered the particles, outfitted the entire ship and army with them, and waited for evil!Nebula's signal in the future/alternate timeline. But that's a crazy thing to just handwave. Or I missed something, that's also possible.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 09:51
|
|
|
Some cuts like this are in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:X is a letter not a number, stupid Mega Man X is the tenth Mega Man
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
Vandar posted:ARGH. It was not!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
Man of Steel is absolutely phenomenal and I will never understand why some people are clamoring to have more human characters to "care about" when Superman is right there as the one the entire movie spent building up for you to care about. Same for monster movies. I care about the monster! gently caress randos on the street, I don't want to see a rando on the street movie!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 09:30
|
|
|
I cared a lot about Cavill-Superman-as-a-human and if you don't want that than of course you won't get anything from the movie, but it was really good for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:That sometimes your parents are loving morons lol Iirc, Clark is supposed to be a teenager or early twenties at most in the scene where his father dies. He's not mature enough to shoulder the responsibility of being the Superman. What Pa Kent does with his sacrifice is buy Clark time to figure out himself, to learn more about the world, and what he wants his place in it to be. And in that sense, Pa Kent is correct to buy Clark some time: he travels the world, does some isolated good deeds here and there because he can't stop being a savior, but ultimately knows that this cannot be it, realizes that this makes him unhappy. And eventually, his hand is forced anyway and he has to reveal himself. But in addition to that, there's also another dimension to what his father's death did to Clark: now, whenever he thinks about revealing himself to the public, he knows he's a) going against his father's stated dying wish and b) he'll always think "okay if I'm outed anyway, I could have saved him back then". It makes his decision harder and more tragic. Because he, and the audience also, cannot know if his father was just wrong or if he was trying to buy Clark time as I said above. (with "outing" I mean revealing that a Superman exists, not that Clark is him)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:Watched New Mutants last weekend, and while being full of issues, it really bothered me that Sunspot was always washing a mountain of huge pots and pans despite there only being six people living there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
I really liked the Snyder cut, I watched it twice in fact with people who both enjoyed it as well. We all had watched the theatrical version before and found it dogshit, so it's both an improvement and good on its own terms in our books I hated BvS theatrical because I thought it made no sense, after goons kept talking about how much more "how did he reach this conclusion" scenes the director's cut adds, I was curious enough (and full of goodwill from the JL Snyder cut) that I got the ultimate edition bluray and you know what? I was in fact much better. I don't think BvS is a masterpiece or anything but it was definitely a good watch with all the stuff added that made the central conflict actually build up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Busting open a locked door means they might face actual resistance, yeah. They're basically there to stop around and have a look, an actual locked door might have armed defenders behind it so come back with buddies.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2023 10:01
|
|
|
A fun thing about the Clones in the Star Wars EU is that the EU started in earnest around 1990 when the first Timothy Zahn novel was published and gained a lot of success. I read pretty much all of them as a kid and it's, like, 80 books or so that came out before Phantom Menace and thus had only the original trilogy to turn to as far as the established world goes. When Menace but especially Clones came out, suddenly every new novel they published had to acknowledge the new movies, so you have a novel set like 30 years after Episode 6, an old Han and Leia visit a planet somewhere and meet a dude who's like "yeah I'm a retired Stormtrooper...you can see I'm one of the original clones of course because those existed all along". However, if you've been following the books as closely as little nerd me did, it's literally the first time either of them met or even heard of a clone trooper. (Similarly, lots of Jedis popping up in remote locations after they firmly set the clone wars culminating in their "extinction" just a few decades ago vs. the implication that Jedi are pretty much forgotten in the entire galaxy because they were a small secretive organization that dwindled over centuries and then got silently purged and not, like, the government)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2023 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Finally watched Rise of Skywalker today
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2023 23:20
|
|