Red Mosquito

Kaius wrote:That was so much fun.

You saw it?
Or you mean the weekend gross pool?

Lol millennials talking

I liked Maz. I assume Kylo killed Luke's lady.

bada wrote:I liked Maz. I assume Kylo killed Luke's lady.

I liked Maz too. Is she one of ETs people?


And good call on Kylo killing his Mrs

Could be a thing

stip wrote:wow, only 8 million dollars behind Jurassic World without a china opening.

I wonder how much Jurassic world did in china its opening weekend.

Most sites appear to be staying $100 million for JW opening weekend in China.

spike wrote:regarding rey's ability to harness the force so quickly: it's possible that she received some training from luke at the school before ren wreaked havoc, and that she'd forgotten it/blocked it out til it was unlocked by ren or the flashback dream or whatever.

I liked that she grabbed ahold of it so quickly. I wonder where she's at by the end of episode 9...she might be able to do some ridiculously cool things with the force.

Grabbed the flashback. Most intriguing part is her in the rain and someone about to attack her and kylos lightsaber stabs the attacker. Leads me to believe she's seeing someone else's experience? Or seeing the future?

dimejinky99 wrote:Grabbed the flashback. Most intriguing part is her in the rain and someone about to attack her and kylos lightsaber stabs the attacker. Leads me to believe she's seeing someone else's experience? Or seeing the future?

http://sendvid.com/i0q9ybuc theres video of the flashback here, albeit recorder quality

Click on the pic to make it go

dime, your're gonna get into trouble with this kind of internet activity...the links and such.

Spoiler: show

just kidding

I was on my way to pay them..

China has replaced Finn entirely with jar jar.
They like dancing seafood apparently.

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:

stip wrote:wow, only 8 million dollars behind Jurassic World without a china opening.

I wonder how much Jurassic world did in china its opening weekend.

Most sites appear to be staying $100 million for JW opening weekend in China.

Can Dime get us a link to the Chinese TWA?

stip wrote:No individual reaciton is more valid than the other, but if we're going to ask whether or not the film succeeded in establishing that feeling then the reactions of everyone do matter. And the two hundred million dollars this movie will make and the overwhelmingly positive reviews (from reviewers falling over themselves to not get prequel sucker punched) does mean that it has struck a chord. The only way to measure the widespread reach of a subjective experience is by seeing how wide spread it is, and trying to understand what helped it reach the people it did.

Here's the thing, stip: I don't care how other people react. I don't care how much money it makes. The emotions of fans and the box office returns don't say anything about the film itself and whether it's any good. I have my own feelings about what helped it reach the people it did, and you have yours. We're not going to reconcile that.

And there are a lot of things we've been talking about. The iconic sounds and images are obviously powerful, as is the way that the story managed to utilize existing attachments to established characters in ways that felt earned and authentic (witness almost every reaction to Han Solo, and compare this to the groaning way OT stuff was shoehorned into the prequels--simply seeing the characters is not enough--it has to feel organic). It creates the direct pipeline to the wellspring of good will and attachment that we have to the OT, and the innocent escapism and the way it fired our imaginations.

All of these are subjective points, and I don't agree with any of them. Banking on nostalgic connections and the power of established iconography is lazy and uncreative at best, and backwards-looking and retarding at worst.

I think it's important to note that all of the previous SW films were forwards-looking. "Frontier filmmaking," if you will. Yes, even the prequels; they may have dealt with familiar characters, but technologically, aesthetically, and ideologically, Lucas was not content to merely coddle nostalgia and repeat past successes. He tried something new. He took a risk. Did it pay off? Most people would say "no." But I will take Lucas's awkward innovation over Abrams's hollow nostalgia any day. Shooting on film and using a lot of practical effects don't mean the same thing today that they did back in 1977. Those things were utilized because that was the cutting edge at the time. Now they are being utilized to replicate a look and feel. I don't think that's worthwhile. And I don't think it's conducive to firing imaginations. Although, I suppose it may be conducive to "innocent escapism," since the very concept of that is something I don't believe in and don't think movies are for.

But this is more than just seeing these things again. The movie expertly captured the tone and the values of the original trilogy.

Here's a thought: Why is this good? Why do I want a new movie to merely recapture? Again, that is nostalgia. Replication. Which is, essentially, meaningless.

Armond White hit on an important point in his review:

"The great renaissance of American filmmaking during the 1970s and its regeneration of film culture (when movies were seen as a vital means of approaching and understanding contemporary experience) were doomed by Star Wars’ pseudo-imaginative, non-campy rehash of escapist junk. Now, the rebooted, politically empty The Force Awakens suggests a boot stuck in the rear of film culture’s flabby remains."

This is exactly why TFA, and all of the other nostalgia-fetishizing movies and TV coming out lately, feel so weightless and worthless to me. Film - art - is, as White said, "a means of approaching and understanding contemporary experience." It's modern mythmaking. When we begin to look at film as trivial escapism, merely a means to coddle our feelings and infantilize ourselves, a vital part of our culture, our voice, is lost. TFA is not about human experience. It is about recreating some warm feelings from our youth in the most non-confrontational way possible. It's goal is to be innocuous. And when that (backed by a ruthless corporate blitzkrieg) becomes the single most popular piece of art on the planet? That's catastrophic.

"With Star Wars, product has not only taken the place of art; it has replaced myth."

like rey, you offer only a half portion!

dimejinky99 wrote:China has replaced Finn entirely with jar jar.
They like dancing seafood apparently.

Now this, I would watch.

There's a blu Ray quality version of FA on torrents already.

I heard

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

stip wrote:No individual reaciton is more valid than the other, but if we're going to ask whether or not the film succeeded in establishing that feeling then the reactions of everyone do matter. And the two hundred million dollars this movie will make and the overwhelmingly positive reviews (from reviewers falling over themselves to not get prequel sucker punched) does mean that it has struck a chord. The only way to measure the widespread reach of a subjective experience is by seeing how wide spread it is, and trying to understand what helped it reach the people it did.

Here's the thing, stip: I don't care how other people react. I don't care how much money it makes. The emotions of fans and the box office returns don't say anything about the film itself and whether it's any good. I have my own feelings about what helped it reach the people it did, and you have yours. We're not going to reconcile that.

And there are a lot of things we've been talking about. The iconic sounds and images are obviously powerful, as is the way that the story managed to utilize existing attachments to established characters in ways that felt earned and authentic (witness almost every reaction to Han Solo, and compare this to the groaning way OT stuff was shoehorned into the prequels--simply seeing the characters is not enough--it has to feel organic). It creates the direct pipeline to the wellspring of good will and attachment that we have to the OT, and the innocent escapism and the way it fired our imaginations.

All of these are subjective points, and I don't agree with any of them. Banking on nostalgic connections and the power of established iconography is lazy and uncreative at best, and backwards-looking and retarding at worst.

I think it's important to note that all of the previous SW films were forwards-looking. "Frontier filmmaking," if you will. Yes, even the prequels; they may have dealt with familiar characters, but technologically, aesthetically, and ideologically, Lucas was not content to merely coddle nostalgia and repeat past successes. He tried something new. He took a risk. Did it pay off? Most people would say "no." But I will take Lucas's awkward innovation over Abrams's hollow nostalgia any day. Shooting on film and using a lot of practical effects don't mean the same thing today that they did back in 1977. Those things were utilized because that was the cutting edge at the time. Now they are being utilized to replicate a look and feel. I don't think that's worthwhile. And I don't think it's conducive to firing imaginations. Although, I suppose it may be conducive to "innocent escapism," since the very concept of that is something I don't believe in and don't think movies are for.

But this is more than just seeing these things again. The movie expertly captured the tone and the values of the original trilogy.

Here's a thought: Why is this good? Why do I want a new movie to merely recapture? Again, that is nostalgia. Replication. Which is, essentially, meaningless.

Armond White hit on an important point in his review:

"The great renaissance of American filmmaking during the 1970s and its regeneration of film culture (when movies were seen as a vital means of approaching and understanding contemporary experience) were doomed by Star Wars’ pseudo-imaginative, non-campy rehash of escapist junk. Now, the rebooted, politically empty The Force Awakens suggests a boot stuck in the rear of film culture’s flabby remains."

This is exactly why TFA, and all of the other nostalgia-fetishizing movies and TV coming out lately, feel so weightless and worthless to me. Film - art - is, as White said, "a means of approaching and understanding contemporary experience." It's modern mythmaking. When we begin to look at film as trivial escapism, merely a means to coddle our feelings and infantilize ourselves, a vital part of our culture, our voice, is lost. TFA is not about human experience. It is about recreating some warm feelings from our youth in the most non-confrontational way possible. It's goal is to be innocuous. And when that (backed by a ruthless corporate blitzkrieg) becomes the single most popular piece of art on the planet? That's catastrophic.

"With Star Wars, product has not only taken the place of art; it has replaced myth."

Shit. You're right. Those fucks.
Thanks for making me hate this movie LV. Can't believe I didn't see it.
I'm never watching Star Wars again.
Thank you for all you do.

Blu-ray quality torrent = only 12 Trojans, 720p in 4X3 aspect, good quality camera on a tripod, and 3 coughs and a fart from the nearby audience members.