Official: STAR WARS THREAD. These are the droids you're looking for. **WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

[dopey]

I would be interested in Ataturk's opinion on the last three MCU movies: Thor Ragnarok, Black Panther and Infinity War

 

[Jr Mouse]

He does a good job of summarizing a problem with a lot of what’s being considered film criticism these days. At least in regards to what we often see online. I’ve been vocal in calling this out for a while.

 

[wojt]

^he got eaten up in comments

 

[Jr Mouse]

^he got eaten up in comments

Well do you disagree with him on this topic and the overall point he’s making?

Please do watch the whole video before commenting. It’s not that long.

 

[wojt]

Well do you disagree with him on this topic and the overall point he’s making?

Please do watch the whole video before commenting. It’s not that long.

I always watch your videos Mouse same this time- but in fact people did leave some good criticism in the comments.

I guess I somewhat agree, but more examples would be fine. I agree about the general idea of over analyzing stuff- Harry Potter example with cup being a teleport is very good indeed. This is definitely nitpicking on part of fans- in my opinion. Same with Die Hard example- here I agree. Plot conveniences are not really plot holes but lazy writings, sometimes they are annoying and feel forced sometimes not- I don't think they can all be graded the same.

However a lot of this talk excuses bad writing and well what the guy said in the beginning internal logic of the movies; for example how handling the force was shown in TFA or hyperdrive kamikaze in TLJ. Besides arguing over semantics whether these are plot holes or not, either way this are examples of bad writing and not following internal logic of the established universe that takes me out of the immersion.

Another example of bad writing would be absurd moments that take you out of the immersion - nuke the fridge moment in latest Indy did that for me. So am I watching these movies the wrong way? Besides is there a right way to watch a movie?

Overall this is very one sided view, that in practice excuses some lazy writing.

 

[Whirling]

Well do you disagree with him on this topic and the overall point he’s making?

Please do watch the whole video before commenting. It’s not that long.

The guy who made that video seems awfully full of himself. He is basically saying that people get too caught up in minor plot holes rather than appreciate the movie as a whole. Fair enough. As he also says, if the movie has something that is too obviously ridiculous, then that can ruin it. Fair enough.

Different people will naturally find different things ridiculous based on their life experience, so it can be hard to draw a line between what matters and what doesn't.

Although people are certainly entitled to watch a move in any manner that they enjoy, it is certainly true that I wouldn't watch a movie being hyper-vigilant for any plot hole or pondering it at length to figure out if there is some deep logical flaw in the plot. That kind of effort put into analyzing movies doesn't seem interesting or worthwhile to me.

What the video also misses is that there is some tipping point where one gets involved in a movie, suspending disbelief, versus getting bored, just noticing all the ways in which it is flawed. I think this tipping point is a key element, rather than the size or number of the flaws, though they could contribute to tipping one over into the second experience. If a particular story resonates with a viewer on a deep emotional level, I think that viewer would forgive all sorts of flaws. I think tremendously good, charismatic actors can make up for nearly anything. Of course, we all know from amateur theater that weak acting can ruin the most beautiful works of drama ever written.

So, I agree with him, but find him annoying and think he took too long to make some basic points.

 

[venividivicibj]

I always watch your videos Mouse same this time- but in fact people did leave some good criticism in the comments.

I guess I somewhat agree, but more examples would be fine. I agree about the general idea of over analyzing stuff- Harry Potter example with cup being a teleport is very good indeed. This is definitely nitpicking on part of fans- in my opinion. Same with Die Hard example- here I agree. Plot conveniences are not really plot holes but lazy writings, sometimes they are annoying and feel forced sometimes not- I don't think they can all be graded the same.

However a lot of this talk excuses bad writing and well what the guy said in the beginning internal logic of the movies; for example how handling the force was shown in TFA or hyperdrive kamikaze in TLJ. Besides arguing over semantics whether these are plot holes or not, either way this are examples of bad writing and not following internal logic of the established universe that takes me out of the immersion.

Another example of bad writing would be absurd moments that take you out of the immersion - nuke the fridge moment in latest Indy did that for me. So am I watching these movies the wrong way? Besides is there a right way to watch a movie?

Overall this is very one sided view, that in practice excuses some lazy writing.

weird when i agree with wojt

 

[Ataturk]

I've only ever seen three Marvel movies, so I don't know enough to comment about them intelligently. My understanding is that comic books, as a matter of course, play fast and loose with their stories; the companies are always "re-imagining" and "rebooting" their various properties. So the readers (viewers?) don't expect much in terms of continuity or coherence.

I never thought Star Wars was going to be like that.

If you really want me to comment on the marvel movies---I can't, because I don't remember them. I do remember getting really bored by the CGI fisticuffs. All that being said, one of the three was Infinity War, but my comment on that is---I dunno. Obviously I didn't understand half of it. But I was impressed by how the movie managed to stay coherent and was somehow less boring than the others in terms of action; I guess it was because the generic gigantic purple baddie was more or less the protagonist.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

I never thought Star Wars was going to be like that.

Orly? When did you decide this? Perhaps you don't know a lot about Star Wars. The Star Wars comic series was planned from before the movie even came out. Have you read any of the original Marvel Star Wars series? They are I.N.S.A.N.E. There's a giant green rabbit as one of the main characters for a start...

Oh, and continuity? Ever read Splinter in the Mind's Eye, the original official sequel to Star Wars? You should. It features Luke and Leia getting up close and personal for a start.

There have been sidetracks and roads not taken and reinventions of the Star Wars universe from day one, mainly because George Lucas had no freaking clue where he was taking this (whatever he's told people over the years), and because it spawned a massive and inventive series of spin-offs, many of which are, to put it mildly, very weird indeed. Sure, they've tried to 'explain' this with 'expanded universe' / 'legends' / 'canon' (in fact several canons...), but this was all pretty much retropsective attempts to bring some order to the insanity.

 

[wojt]

GL did not care about expanded universe he just sold rights to write left and right. I think we should only judge SW in terms of continuity looking at the movies. And ofc there are some questionable logical choices by writing team like deathstar design but we overlook that since the movie was great and still not outrageously absurd. I think Rogue1 did a very fine job tying sime of the lose ends here(design flaw, size of rebel fleet). SW under Lucas in general followed its own universe logic very proficiently imo.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

SW under Lucas in general followed its own universe logic very proficiently imo.

Oh yeah? Let's have some actual film history here.

Ever heard of midi-chlorians? You know Lucas wanted the whole third trilogy to be about micro-organisms he only invented for the prequels? (And you know what, I think I would have prefered the giant green rabbit to Jar-Jar Binks). The original film was a total mess until it was saved by his associates, most of what was good about Lucas's original treatment was stolen wholesale from French comics and Japanese samurai movies, and the generally acknowledged 'best one' (ESB) had little to do with Lucas. The magic in the original trilogy was the result of fantastic free-roaming acting by a cast who all thought Lucas couldn't write or direct (he doesn't like working with real people and prefers CGI) and by excellent visual artists and special effects people (even 'his' revolutionary sound montages were actually created by his mentor, Walter Murch). It's pretty damn obvious why Disney ditched him as soon as they could...

 

[wojt]

Your post did not contradict what I said.

Also I know what Lucas had in mind for 3rd trilogy I watched his interview. I would still prefer it to watching than any of the brilliant Jar Jar Abrams works. Lucas is not best with dialogues as we all can agree but he invented one of the most loved fictional universe in the history of fiction. He did not invent it from scratch he used inspirations from other stories and there is nothing wrong with that- that's in fact what almost everybody writing any fiction does. Was Tolkien's or G.R.R.M work any different in that regard? Or say Sapkowski or Roddenberry? It's all taking old ideas and fusing them into a new universe. From what we know free roaming by actors did in fact make the movie better- especially by Harrison Ford, but you also need to have a director who is open to input by other people and luckily GL was that director.

 

[Gibonius]

but you also need to have a director who is open to input by other people and luckily GL was that director.

SW under Lucas in general followed its own universe logic very proficiently imo.

He was famously resistant to outside input in the prequels, and it really shows. There's just SO MUCH wrong with the prequels, he took a giant dump all over the things people loved about the original creation.

I can't see how you could say that he was good at sticking to the logic of the universe after the catastrophe of those movies. He's been pretty public about it too, he had 20 years of postgaming all the stuff he didn't like about the original movies (mostly changes that other people persuaded him to make) and he set out to "fix" all of them. The resulting universe didn't feel like Star Wars to me, nor did it to a lot of other people who grew up loving that universe.

The sequels have their own problems, but they at least feel like they're living in the same world as the OG trilogy.

 

[wojt]

I can't see how you could say that he was good at sticking to the logic of the universe after the catastrophe of those movies. He's been pretty public about it too, he had 20 years of postgaming all the stuff he didn't like about the original movies (mostly changes that other people persuaded him to make) and he set out to "fix" all of them. The resulting universe didn't feel like Star Wars to me, nor did it to a lot of other people who grew up loving that universe.

I would not say prequels were that bad. Obviously they were nothing near the original still it was fun to see the story unfold.

I agree about special edition; especially 'Han shot first' fiasco. I prefer unauthorized de-specialized edition.

By the movie logic as was used by the person in Mouse's video - I refer to internal logic/rules layed down by the movie or its prequels.

He was sticking in to the logic to his own movies since not trained person was not able to pull off mind tricks with no training, he did not weaponize hyperspace that undermine logic of all space battles preceding that etc. We can expect certain level force users to follow some 'rules', Rey throws all these to the garbage bin. Not to mention Luke totally acting out of the character established in 4,5,6. It's like it's not even the same person.

The sequels have their own problems, but they at least feel like they're living in the same world as the OG trilogy.

That's how I feel about prequels, they have problems but at least it's the same SW as 4,5,6. Rogue1 has that feel as well. 7,8 just don't do it for me. It's not SW for me anymore.

 

[Texasmade]

To me Rogue 1, 7, and 8 looked more like the OT than the prequels which looked like a steampunk fantasy land. The universe looked more similar even if the characters in 7 and 8 were off.