Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I agree. But now we're getting down to subjective vs objective. Michael Bay satisfies YOU. But his work doesn't satisfy everyone. Ditto JJ Abrams and me.

Wait, I think you misread what I said. I didn't say anything about them satisfying me. I said their art satisfied THEM.

Seems as though with this you insinuate that a guy like JJ abrams is not satisfied with his art? People say this same dull shit about pearl jam just because they dont like their current music.

Correct me if im wrong.

In the case of TFA? That was hardly his art. That movie was developed and shepherded by execs from day one. After the prequels, Kennedy and co. took no chances. Abrams was a reliably bland hand to bring it to competent completion for a return on their investment. He barely seems to have any personality at all from what I've seen from him, both in his art and in his interviews.

Okay, so you just proved my point. you dont like the movie, thus its not his art, and its not art.

Glad thats cleared up.

Now you get it

You know, considering how bland and dull of a person he seems to be, maybe TFA IS the ultimate expression of his soul as an artist.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I agree. But now we're getting down to subjective vs objective. Michael Bay satisfies YOU. But his work doesn't satisfy everyone. Ditto JJ Abrams and me.

Wait, I think you misread what I said. I didn't say anything about them satisfying me. I said their art satisfied THEM.

Seems as though with this you insinuate that a guy like JJ abrams is not satisfied with his art? People say this same dull shit about pearl jam just because they dont like their current music.

Correct me if im wrong.

In the case of TFA? That was hardly his art. That movie was developed and shepherded by execs from day one. After the prequels, Kennedy and co. took no chances. Abrams was a reliably bland hand to bring it to competent completion for a return on their investment. He barely seems to have any personality at all from what I've seen from him, both in his art and in his interviews.

I can't speak to your final comments. But I can tell you that TFA was absolutely JJ. The studio had very little input into what he put into TFA. He threw out the original script. He fought tooth and nail with KK and Disney. There were documented issues with some of his decisions about where to take the story and how to film it. If you hate the movie, that's on JJ, not Lucasfilm. TFA was not a "Disney" film.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I agree. But now we're getting down to subjective vs objective. Michael Bay satisfies YOU. But his work doesn't satisfy everyone. Ditto JJ Abrams and me.

Wait, I think you misread what I said. I didn't say anything about them satisfying me. I said their art satisfied THEM.

Seems as though with this you insinuate that a guy like JJ abrams is not satisfied with his art? People say this same dull shit about pearl jam just because they dont like their current music.

Correct me if im wrong.

In the case of TFA? That was hardly his art. That movie was developed and shepherded by execs from day one. After the prequels, Kennedy and co. took no chances. Abrams was a reliably bland hand to bring it to competent completion for a return on their investment. He barely seems to have any personality at all from what I've seen from him, both in his art and in his interviews.

I can't speak to your final comments. But I can tell you that TFA was absolutely JJ. The studio had very little input into what he put into TFA. He threw out the original script. He fought tooth and nail with KK and Disney. There were documented issues with some of his decisions about where to take the story and how to film it. If you hate the movie, that's on JJ, not Lucasfilm. TFA was not a "Disney" film.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:You know, considering how bland and dull of a person he seems to be, maybe TFA IS the ultimate expression of his soul as an artist.

Won't a good test be TLJ? If that's new, different, unexpected, has some personality vs. a remake of Empire Strikes Back, then that's a real indictment on Abrams and TFA.

Coach wrote:Won't a good test be TLJ? If that's new, different, unexpected, has some personality vs. a remake of Empire Strikes Back, then that's a real indictment on Abrams and TFA.

Yes and no.

I expect TLJ to be very different from all the Star Wars films to date. But this "reboot/retread/remake" of A New Hope argument is so overblown it's embarrassing at this point.

Doesn't mean that I don't think JJ is a "safe" choice. He is. But he's also a strong choice to finish the trilogy he started.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:You know, considering how bland and dull of a person he seems to be, maybe TFA IS the ultimate expression of his soul as an artist.

But, again, this is why this is a pointless conversation to have. You don't believe in any sort of objective standards for art. So it all comes down to subjectivity. So...

lol "overblown"

LoathedVermin72 wrote:lol "overblown"

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:lol "overblown"

I legit respect LV but I cannot, for the life of me, understand how these complaints can be lobbed against star wars and JJ abrams and then whilst watching the transformer movies not even blink an eye.

Because they are extremely different?

No

But don't you love TFA and hate Transformers?

durdencommatyler wrote:

Coach wrote:Won't a good test be TLJ? If that's new, different, unexpected, has some personality vs. a remake of Empire Strikes Back, then that's a real indictment on Abrams and TFA.

Yes and no.

I expect TLJ to be very different from all the Star Wars films to date. But this "reboot/retread/remake" of A New Hope argument is so overblown it's embarrassing at this point.

Doesn't mean that I don't think JJ is a "safe" choice. He is. But he's also a strong choice to finish the trilogy he started.

It's very similar, I enjoyed it, but still...

Skywalker type stranded on sand planet.

There's another death star that's easy to blow up.

There's a bad guy in black wearing a mask.

The same group of rebels who punch above their weight and succeed.

I enjoyed the film, but man, they should have avoided the cliches. Why do we need to see Han's son at all? Why don't you lead with Luke? Why does it have to be the obvious...that Luke's vanished (hello, sounds familiar) because a young Jedi turned on him. Again, sounds too familiar to me. They could have turned that universe upside down, but didn't.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:But don't you love TFA and hate Transformers?

Yes

Coach wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Coach wrote:Won't a good test be TLJ? If that's new, different, unexpected, has some personality vs. a remake of Empire Strikes Back, then that's a real indictment on Abrams and TFA.

Yes and no.

I expect TLJ to be very different from all the Star Wars films to date. But this "reboot/retread/remake" of A New Hope argument is so overblown it's embarrassing at this point.

Doesn't mean that I don't think JJ is a "safe" choice. He is. But he's also a strong choice to finish the trilogy he started.

It's very similar, I enjoyed it, but still...

Skywalker type stranded on sand planet.

There's another death star that's easy to blow up.

There's a bad guy in black wearing a mask.

The same group of rebels who punch above their weight and succeed.

I enjoyed the film, but man, they should have avoided the cliches. Why do we need to see Han's son at all? Why don't you lead with Luke? Why does it have to be the obvious...that Luke's vanished (hello, sounds familiar) because a young Jedi turned on him. Again, sounds too familiar to me. They could have turned that universe upside down, but didn't.

So leading with Luke is less cliche than seeing Han's son?

Strat wrote:

Coach wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Coach wrote:Won't a good test be TLJ? If that's new, different, unexpected, has some personality vs. a remake of Empire Strikes Back, then that's a real indictment on Abrams and TFA.

Yes and no.

I expect TLJ to be very different from all the Star Wars films to date. But this "reboot/retread/remake" of A New Hope argument is so overblown it's embarrassing at this point.

Doesn't mean that I don't think JJ is a "safe" choice. He is. But he's also a strong choice to finish the trilogy he started.

It's very similar, I enjoyed it, but still...

Skywalker type stranded on sand planet.

There's another death star that's easy to blow up.

There's a bad guy in black wearing a mask.

The same group of rebels who punch above their weight and succeed.

I enjoyed the film, but man, they should have avoided the cliches. Why do we need to see Han's son at all? Why don't you lead with Luke? Why does it have to be the obvious...that Luke's vanished (hello, sounds familiar) because a young Jedi turned on him. Again, sounds too familiar to me. They could have turned that universe upside down, but didn't.

So leading with Luke is less cliche than seeing Han's son?

The fact that Han and Leia had a son w/ Jedi powers and turned was, yes, so familiar and the perfect, obvious safe choice. I haven't read many books outside the films, but even I could see that coming...

Coach wrote:

Strat wrote:

Coach wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Coach wrote:Won't a good test be TLJ? If that's new, different, unexpected, has some personality vs. a remake of Empire Strikes Back, then that's a real indictment on Abrams and TFA.

Yes and no.

I expect TLJ to be very different from all the Star Wars films to date. But this "reboot/retread/remake" of A New Hope argument is so overblown it's embarrassing at this point.

Doesn't mean that I don't think JJ is a "safe" choice. He is. But he's also a strong choice to finish the trilogy he started.

It's very similar, I enjoyed it, but still...

Skywalker type stranded on sand planet.

There's another death star that's easy to blow up.

There's a bad guy in black wearing a mask.

The same group of rebels who punch above their weight and succeed.

I enjoyed the film, but man, they should have avoided the cliches. Why do we need to see Han's son at all? Why don't you lead with Luke? Why does it have to be the obvious...that Luke's vanished (hello, sounds familiar) because a young Jedi turned on him. Again, sounds too familiar to me. They could have turned that universe upside down, but didn't.

So leading with Luke is less cliche than seeing Han's son?

The fact that Han and Leia had a son w/ Jedi powers and turned was, yes, so familiar and the perfect, obvious safe choice. I haven't read many books outside the films, but even I could see that coming...

Man, you better be happy JJ took over. You would have HATED Arndt's script, then. Woof.

Similarities in these stories/worlds are not an issue for me. This is a long epic song. There are bound to be repetitions and parallels. And there should be. So many films of a certain genre are the same, or similar. I remember when everyone was all over Benjamin Button for just being another Forrest Gump. It's all just so silly, to me.

The "new" Death Star thing was tiresome to a degree. But it also makes a ton of sense in the universe. I've argued all of this to death for too long now to have much interest in going over all of it again. It bugs you, fine. It doesn't bother me. You should listen to that podcast Dime posted. It goes a long way toward articulating in real academic terms why I don't have issues with the stuff people are always going on about.