Saw Rise of Skywalker.

Interesting and intriguing new story ideas.

Unfortunately JJ's "To Do" list on this film was just too much. Scenes that revisited the original trilogy seemed to do more damage than good to the continuity of the story.

Carrie Fisher scenes didn't flow very well and some of the script was flat out painful.

In relation to the title I can't say I really get the ending of the film.

Going to see it again tomorrow with another group of people. Maybe a second viewing will help.

From what I understand, fan opinions on Skywalker have been very mixed. I only got the spoilers part, but one of the problems I think was the whole up/down in/out Kylo Ren thing and the fact that each episode basically removed a beloved character, leaving us with what is left.

There were 9 movies and each one had memorable scenes and characters and of course they were made well. But did we need to take 2 more trilogies to see what came before and after episodes 4 - 6? Did we need to see Luke, Leia and Han at all after they beat the Empire?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Did we need to see Luke, Leia and Han at all after they beat the Empire?

No, they could have been brought up in name only if needed. In fact the whole thing is kind of confusing that they were. It's like making Bilbo Baggins a General in Gandalf's army against Sauron in Lord of the Rings.

After watching it a second time I think the whole thing suffers from Disney formula. Too nice, too happy, too politically correct.

All of the elements were there to make a great movie, they just chose not to do it.

I think we did. I wanted to see Luke as a Jedi Master with Han and Leia together with Leia perhaps as a Jedi Master as well. I don't think I was the only one who wanted to see at least one great scene with the three of them together. Instead, we got no scenes with all three. I understood the focus was going to shift to younger characters overall and that we might lose one of the heroes as part of the drama of the story but the moviemakers really fumbled the opportunity to make a good Star Wars movie so far. I thought "Rogue One" was a good story and a good movie.

I haven't seen the new movie yet. Maybe Abrams was able to salvage something in the wrap-up.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Did we need to see Luke, Leia and Han at all after they beat the Empire?

Box office down this year.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I think we did. I wanted to see Luke as a Jedi Master with Han and Leia together with Leia perhaps as a Jedi Master as well. I don't think I was the only one who wanted to see at least one great scene with the three of them together. Instead, we got no scenes with all three. I understood the focus was going to shift to younger characters overall and that we might lose one of the heroes as part of the drama of the story but the moviemakers really fumbled the opportunity to make a good Star Wars movie so far. I thought "Rogue One" was a good story and a good movie.

I haven't seen the new movie yet. Maybe Abrams was able to salvage something in the wrap-up.

Jess

I think there is a difference between needing to see them and wanting to see them. I think you are correct at what the fans wanted to see but at the same time they really were not needed to continue the story this many years later.

I'm not a canon guy, I have read very few books and played some of the video games outside of watching the films. It seems to me that whole point of being a rebellion is to overthrow something and then usher in a new and better government. This is where we were at the end of Jedi. 30 years later the "resistance" is still around and called the resistance. Leia has never been elected president (you know, to make the galaxy great again ) and now she is running around with a rag tag, barely funded army out in the woods at an age when she should be long retired from military service AND apparently the FORCE as fallen asleep. Things didn't go very well, did they?

For me the whole set up to the new trilogy makes no sense. Not to mention if you pay attention all three of the new films are nothing more than re-worked scripts lifted from episodes IV-VI. Don't get me wrong, they are a fun ride with great effects but as a story I was not thrilled about it.

Yes, I think Rogue One is still the best Star Wars film so far from the Disney reign. Even with all the mistakes they did with Solo, as a story it was also more original than the big trilogy.

Yeah that's my big issue with the way they are making franchise title movies these days and it looks like I'm not going to get passed it. The sequels or remakes or re-imagings or resets or whatever you want to call them are tearing down what came before rather than building on it. To a certain extent you have to change the characters and their fates as its a different storyline, but to wipe it out makes watching the prior films pointless. If you weren't satisfied with them or you didn't like how it ended, maybe another chance to do it right is welcomed. But if it was wrapped up and it was good, leave the thing alone and start from a new place.

When Alien3 wiped out the ending of Aliens, I detested it. When Halloween 2019 wiped out every Halloween film after the first one, I didn't care because they were mostly bad movies. When Harry Potter films just kept going over the same story again and again, well I lost interest somewhere in the middle. Three movies are enough for any running story arc and then they should end it well and leave it alone. Come back with different characters if you must make money, but don't ruin how the audience comes to think of the last ones. Don't turn the winners into the next sacrificial lambs for dramatic license.

Star Wars should have been left at Jedi. It was a happy ending. What's wrong with that? The next three movies just showed that everyone was miserable for the past 20 odd years and accomplished very little. How sad, even if it is only fiction.

Even when I was kid watching "Jedi", I never got the sense that Luke was happy perfectly happy at the end of it. The argument over whether 7-9 were a worthy conclusion to his story is a valid one, but that story needed to be sold.

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
but that story needed to be sold.

No truer words spoken.

I agree that Star Wars was done at Jedi. If the next gen needed to be told I would have liked to have seen more Skywalker children (from Luke too) involved. I think a trilogy based on multiple siblings and cousins fused strongly with both sides of the force would have been a much more interesting tale. Rey with her lineage could have still played a part.

Disney wanted that 4 billion back, and sooner rather than later. Another year or two of pre-planning inarguably would have led to something much more cohesive than what resulted. Still, the new movies will be watched and debated for decades to come. There will be many more movies in this series, I have zero doubt.

It struck me that the 40 million the new one made on opening night was alone 1% of the entire investment Disney made to get all of Lucasfilm, and they again approached that on Christmas day. What an acquisition! Between Star Wars and Marvel Comics, they still have thousands of already created characters they haven't yet used for future movies and TV.

Let's remember that Star Wars was originally considered just one story among "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" (his last name was Starkiller for a while). All these Star Wars movies being made across decades ended up providing a unique opportunity to tell the story of a young man across time to his old age even if the focus shifted to younger characters. I don't think Lucas ever thought of telling a story about Luke at the same age as Obi-Wan Kenobi was in the original movie.

I think the people at Disney knew they had to include as many main characters from the past as possible for the old fans, and yes, many fans didn't like "The Force Awakens" because that part of the story was too much of a remake of "A New Hope" (we need to destroy a Death Star). It was the safe way to go and therefore not the way it should have gone.

As I understand the story of this last trilogy, and like you without the benefit of reading any of the "journey to," the Rebellion that took down the Galactic Empire at the end of "Return of the Jedi" was able to restore a democratic government. However, some leaders within the Empire also survived and they escaped with some resources including elements of the Imperial Fleet to some backwater of the galaxy.

History repeats itself. People in the new government got complacent over time. I don't know who Snoak was but he had a plan. He must've skillfully manipulated situations and quietly eliminated threats using the Dark Side (just as Palpatine did), putting his people in positions to secure more resources to organize and strengthen a "New Order" while also weakening the government and its military to the point that only part of it could be organized into "The Resistance." Snoak also destroyed the Jedi training program before it could get going.

I think Leia was probably retired but was called back to service because she was one of the few remaining people with experience running successful combat operations at the fleet level.

Yeah, Rey awakened to the Force but the Force itself didn't awaken.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I think we did. I wanted to see Luke as a Jedi Master with Han and Leia together with Leia perhaps as a Jedi Master as well. I don't think I was the only one who wanted to see at least one great scene with the three of them together. Instead, we got no scenes with all three. I understood the focus was going to shift to younger characters overall and that we might lose one of the heroes as part of the drama of the story but the moviemakers really fumbled the opportunity to make a good Star Wars movie so far. I thought "Rogue One" was a good story and a good movie.

I haven't seen the new movie yet. Maybe Abrams was able to salvage something in the wrap-up.

Jess

I think there is a difference between needing to see them and wanting to see them. I think you are correct at what the fans wanted to see but at the same time they really were not needed to continue the story this many years later.

I'm not a canon guy, I have read very few books and played some of the video games outside of watching the films. It seems to me that whole point of being a rebellion is to overthrow something and then usher in a new and better government. This is where we were at the end of Jedi. 30 years later the "resistance" is still around and called the resistance. Leia has never been elected president (you know, to make the galaxy great again ) and now she is running around with a rag tag, barely funded army out in the woods at an age when she should be long retired from military service AND apparently the FORCE as fallen asleep. Things didn't go very well, did they?

For me the whole set up to the new trilogy makes no sense. Not to mention if you pay attention all three of the new films are nothing more than re-worked scripts lifted from episodes IV-VI. Don't get me wrong, they are a fun ride with great effects but as a story I was not thrilled about it.

Yes, I think Rogue One is still the best Star Wars film so far from the Disney reign. Even with all the mistakes they did with Solo, as a story it was also more original than the big trilogy.

Star Wars is currently the 7th highest grossing film of 2019, domestically, and it is still moving up the charts

This will probably be the biggest year in Disney movie history. In the end, it will have 7 of the Top 10 films of the year, and a piece of the 8th one (Spider Man: Far from Home)

Warner Bros. will have the only 2 non-Disney films on the Top 10 list: Joker and IT Part 2

What a far cry from the condition that Disney was in back in the 1970s and 1980s, when times were tough for them.

Star Wars is now the # 3 film of 2019 at 455 M, behind only Avengers (858 M) and Lion King (543 M)

I finally got around to seeing Rise of Skywalker. Two thoughts:

1. Any fighting force that promotes Poe Dameron to General deserves to lose.

2. This was the first movie I've been to at a theater in about a year. When I first got out of college and was single, I might see 40-50 a year. Tuesday night was matinee ($1.50 tickets), and I'd take a canned coke and a bag of peanut M&M's in my jacket. Even at full price, ($3.50), it wasn't too expensive. This was late 1980s. Now, with a wife and son, matinee tickets are ~$25. I got a drink and my son wanted a slushee. Another $13. There was no one at the ticket booth, so you either had to buy tickets at an ATM style machine, which took well over a minute per transaction (long line meant long wait) or wait through the refreshments line to buy tickets. The girl who was tearing tickets suggested that we could buy tickets online on our phones, but she didn't mention that pesky "convenience fee" of over $2 per ticket. At any rate, show time was at 1:15. We got there at 1:00, and after getting tickets and drinks, it was 1:15 on the button when we sat down. But then there was commercials and trailers. For thirty long minutes. The movie did not start until 1:45.

The last few times I've been to the theater, I've thought "why did I use to do this so much?" We have Netflix and Amazon Prime, and most of the things we want to see show up pretty soon (plus, I've heard there is this thing called "torrents" . . . ). Watching a movie at home on a big screen with a good sound system is much more like the theater experience than it used to be. I know, they say that movies are a communal experience and it is best to watch them in a room full of other moviegoers. But you know what? I don't like most of the other people in the theater. They talk, they get up and go to the bathroom, they turn on their phones. They should stay home, too.

I saw it about a week ago. I thought that banter early in the movie between Rey, Finn, and Poe sounded awkward which was surprising because Abrams is known for having an ear for dialogue. Overall, the movie was okay - certainly better than "The Last Jedi." It was great to see Lando again with just about everyone else gone or ghostly-gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
I finally got around to seeing Rise of Skywalker. Two thoughts:

1. Any fighting force that promotes Poe Dameron to General deserves to lose.

2. This was the first movie I've been to at a theater in about a year. When I first got out of college and was single, I might see 40-50 a year. Tuesday night was matinee ($1.50 tickets), and I'd take a canned coke and a bag of peanut M&M's in my jacket. Even at full price, ($3.50), it wasn't too expensive. This was late 1980s. Now, with a wife and son, matinee tickets are ~$25. I got a drink and my son wanted a slushee. Another $13. There was no one at the ticket booth, so you either had to buy tickets at an ATM style machine, which took well over a minute per transaction (long line meant long wait) or wait through the refreshments line to buy tickets. The girl who was tearing tickets suggested that we could buy tickets online on our phones, but she didn't mention that pesky "convenience fee" of over $2 per ticket. At any rate, show time was at 1:15. We got there at 1:00, and after getting tickets and drinks, it was 1:15 on the button when we sat down. But then there was commercials and trailers. For thirty long minutes. The movie did not start until 1:45.

The last few times I've been to the theater, I've thought "why did I use to do this so much?" We have Netflix and Amazon Prime, and most of the things we want to see show up pretty soon (plus, I've heard there is this thing called "torrents" . . . ). Watching a movie at home on a big screen with a good sound system is much more like the theater experience than it used to be. I know, they say that movies are a communal experience and it is best to watch them in a room full of other moviegoers. But you know what? I don't like most of the other people in the theater. They talk, they get up and go to the bathroom, they turn on their phones. They should stay home, too.

Finally got around to watching IT Chapter Two on DVD. I watched the first part on DVD also back in 2018. I had read the book and saw the TV miniseries long ago, so I never intended to see this one in the theatre. I thought the first part started slow, but ended well enough for me to look forward to the adult portion of the story. What a disappointment for me and I was surprised that I didn't hear how bad this one was. Did I miss something?

The plot became incomprehensible early and stayed that way. IT never made a whole lot of sense anyway when it came down to explaining the creature, but I don't even know what they were trying to say here and I knew the story. The special effects were horrible and took all the scare out of the supposed fright scenes. Most scenes were in such low light that you never got a good look at all those decaying toothy open-mouth broomsticks. The actors hardly had any decent scenes to themselves, as all they did was walk into and then run away from all those decaying toothy open-mouth broomsticks. Pennywise, who was fairly well done in the first installment, was laughable in this one. He was also defeated with harsh language, so much for immortal beings or aliens or big spiders or whatever it was they were going for.

Its rare that I see a horror film with a good budget and name actors and I can't find one good scene or one good character in the whole darn movie. This is IT. IT made 472M worldwide and I have no idea how.

Saw 1917 last night.

Pros

Visually incredible

Don't think I have seen a WWI film grasp the horror of trench warfare as well as this.

The directors film style works pretty well for the first half of the movie.

Cons

Not as much action as the trailer would imply

Story not very deep and many great actors were reduced to bit parts.

The directors film style begins to get on your nerves in the second half. The ending was underwhelming.


I would give it a B-

I haven't seen 1917, but a pair of Australian WWI movies I would recommend are The Lighthorsemen and Gallipoli. Both are based on true facts and real people, with I'm sure some embellishment. Still real portrayals.

1917 is inspired on real events according to the studio. The plot sounds an awful lot like Saving Private Ryan to me. Of course the effects are better, but you always need characters and actors to play a story. The idea that no actors from 1917 seem to be singled out for any awards means that the cast and story was less important than the spectacle.

It's very much a World War I version of "Saving Private Ryan". It's definitely worth a look thanks to the camerawork of ace cinematographer Roger Deakins, but it should not be considered for Best Picture just for that.

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
It's very much a World War I version of "Saving Private Ryan". It's definitely worth a look thanks to the camerawork of ace cinematographer Roger Deakins, but it should not be considered for Best Picture just for that.

Yeah, I think the fact of it never getting off the main character hurt the film more than it helped. My son and I started to make video game cliche jokes.

I would give it some technical awards but not best picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I haven't seen 1917, but a pair of Australian WWI movies I would recommend are The Lighthorsemen and Gallipoli.

I have seen Gallipoli, very good movie. I think what gives 1917 such a different view is that the camera work really does it's intended job early on. As with the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan there is a ground level perspective that really hits the audience on a personal level.