Board 8 > I just got back from midnight Avengers screening

(+) Yeah! (+)

LapisLazuli posted...

People getting mad at other people for liking or disliking a movie.

Episode 8 all over again.

LBH, Any Star Wars movie outside of the OT (Eps 4-6) is gonna be picked apart/shat on.
---

neonreaper posted...

No you were angered by it, Strawmandabeste

Based on the responses since this post, it appears you are correct!
---

Hardcore_Adult posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

People getting mad at other people for liking or disliking a movie.

Episode 8 all over again.

LBH, Any Star Wars movie outside of the OT (Eps 4-6) is gonna be picked apart/shat on.

If Episode 7 didn't want to be picked on it should have tried being good.
---

NFUN posted...

If Episode 7 didn't want to be picked on it should have tried being good.

https://pics.me.me/be-careful-you-dont-cut-yourself-on-all-that-edge-19981297.png
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

NFUN posted...

If Episode 7 didn't want to be picked on it should have tried being good.

https://pics.me.me/be-careful-you-dont-cut-yourself-on-all-that-edge-19981297.png

how is it edgy to say a movie wasnt good
---

it's pretty edgy to say a movie a majority of people liked wasn't good.

you think it wouldn't be edgy if i said the shawshank redemption sucked?
---

People are free to like bad things.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it's pretty edgy to say a movie a majority of people liked wasn't good.

you think it wouldn't be edgy if i said the shawshank redemption sucked?

it wouldn't, no, unless you were saying that specifically because a lot of people liked it, in which case it would

i said the force awakens isnt good because it isnt

Grand Kirby posted...

People are free to like bad things.

im not mad at people for liking the movie im mad at the movie for sucking
---

NFUN posted...

it wouldn't, no, unless you were saying that specifically because a lot of people liked it, in which case it would

well in fairness, it's also the way you phrased it. you didn't say "the force awakens isn't good" (which wouldn't be all that edgy), you said "if it didn't want to be picked on it should try - oh, i don't know - being good?" also, you gave 0% reasoning for why you don't consider the force awakens to be a good movie, which adds to the edge.

perhaps i just define "edge" differently than you do, though!
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

NFUN posted...

it wouldn't, no, unless you were saying that specifically because a lot of people liked it, in which case it would

well in fairness, it's also the way you phrased it. you didn't say "the force awakens isn't good" (which wouldn't be all that edgy), you said "if it didn't want to be picked on it should try - oh, i don't know - being good?" also, you gave 0% reasoning for why you don't consider the force awakens to be a good movie, which adds to the edge.

perhaps i just define "edge" differently than you do, though!

i phrased it that way because of the context.

do you really want me derail another thread into a debate about why a popular movie isn't very good?

I wasn't even trying to fuck with the last one!
---

NFUN posted...

do you really want me derail another thread into a debate about why a popular movie isn't very good?

well this topic was already sort of derailing into star wars talk anyway, so...
---

TFA is great it was just too advanced for NFUN to get
---

I have the same issue that a lot of people have: The Force Awakens is utterly, obnoxiously derivative. It's just Episode 4 all over again. A somewhat generic evil empire builds planet-destroying doomsday device only to be stopped by an unlikely Jedi with the same plucky team. I was amazed at what they were trying to get away with while watching it. It was just the same damn thing. Same origin story. Same mute droid buddy. Same Han Solo and Chewbacca. It was a heavy point of characterization that the villain wanted to be the antagonist from the other movies. There were other similarities that bothered me which I'd elucidate, but for another point of contention that I have; the movie was super forgettable as well. I only saw it a year ago, but all I really remember (besides my impressions and a few very specific moments) were a chase through a desert market, Han Solo having to escape from bounty hunters or something, a battle in a forest temple place where Rey gets the lightsaber and a few scattered moments from the base. Nothing stuck with me besides annoyance at the flaws I've been pointing out.

A lot of the similarities would've been fine too, if the movie as a whole wasn't such a carbon copy, like general callbacks and greater thematic points and such, but it was so overdone. I especially took umbrage at the new evil empire or cult thing. It was just there. Episode 6 ended with the Empire being overthrown, Episode 7's intro crawl said "lol theres a new one now". It felt lazy and unsatisfying.

Despite all of the rampant similarities, it still somehow didn't feel like Star Wars. And that's a very strange thing for me to complain about, because I don't even like Star Wars that much. But the original movies had a soul, and that's not nostalgia speaking, because I saw the prequels first and didn't see the originals until I was like 13 or something. But I choose the that term specifically because that's precisely what TFA lacked. It was soulless. It often felt, well, like a Marvel movie, or at least how I mentally stereotype them. Somewhat hamfisted attempts at deeper personalization between over-the-top but bland action scenes and occasional super bad dialogue, the kind of Whedon one-liner before battle that I find absolutely detestable. I can't remember any in particular, but I know I found a couple nauseating. It was a Disney action movie, and it felt it. I could see profit-motivation leaking from each fight and hear it oozing in every line of dialogue.

I can respect some things the movie did, but they weren't enough to redeem it. I haven't said the movie was bad (I said it sucked once, but only because I wanted to use more variety). I've always said that it wasn't good. It wasn't good in the way I find the most displeasing, in the way that I use to justify my Pavlovian response to the mention of Marvel. It didn't feel like it aspired to much of anything. It was entertaining. I'm glad I watched it instead of humming to myself for an hour and a half. I got excited and points and even empathized at others. But the movie felt artificial, and forced. It wasn't trying to tell a great story, or to reveal an insight on humanity. It didn't aspire, it didn't teach, it didn't make you think in any meaningful way. Without the production values, it'd be mediocre, and that's about all it aimed for. I believe the term is "schlock".

The Force Awakens wasn't quite bad. It just wasn't good.
---

Juat got back from seeing the movie again! It was still really good!
---

i disagree with the "it's derivative" argument. as long as the thing it's derivative from is good (and i think ANH is good), i don't have a problem with it. i also disagreed with the people who said avatar sucked because it's a story that's been told a million times before. yes, the movie sucked, but not because it ripped off an old story - it sucked because the story wasn't that great to begin with. plus it told the story in a really shitty way. like, pocahontas legitimately did a better job with this material than avatar did. that being said, i don't ENTIRELY disagree with this argument. when C-3PO said "thank the maker!" i thought "ok guys, we're having a bit TOO much fun with all the references."

as for the dialogue, i didn't think it was that bad and i thought much of the dialogue in RotJ was a lot worse. (the dialogue in ANH and ESB was certainly better, though.)
---

Not liking TFA isn't exactly an edgy opinion. Once the 'holy shit new Star Wars' sheen faded, it started to get way more criticized.
---

Arguments like NFUN's are clearly holding the movie to a far different, arguably impossible standard than other movies

Like imagine if you applied those same derivative criticisms to all media that you consume, you wouldn't end up liking anything (except for some really rare indie stuff, which I doubt NFUN is hipster enough for)
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Like imagine if you applied those same derivative criticisms to all media that you consume, you wouldn't end up liking anything (except for some really rare indie stuff, which I doubt NFUN is hipster enough for)

this.

like, NFUN didn't say if he likes ANH, but if he does his whole "TFA is derivative" argument completely falls apart. ANH is just the hero's journey beat for beat.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Arguments like NFUN's are clearly holding the movie to a far different, arguably impossible standard than other movies

Like imagine if you applied those same derivative criticisms to all media that you consume, you wouldn't end up liking anything (except for some really rare indie stuff, which I doubt NFUN is hipster enough for)

Dude like I said I don't even hold Star Wars in high regards. 5 is pretty good but I don't think 4 or 6 are anything special. When they announced the movie I wasn't hyped for a new Star Wars or afraid that they'd tarnish its legacy (lol). The problem is that it's derivative of another movie in the same franchise (which is somewhat of an issue for 6 as well). It's not just derivative, it's the same god damn movie, aside from adding depth the villain a movie or two earlier and adding in a character undergoing a morality crisis. It's just a remake of A New Hope with a bunch of stuff tacked on that I dislike or even hate. "There are only 6 stories", sure, but each iteration should be unique in some way or add something of meaning. The Force Awakens really doesn't. The last thought any piece of media should aim to provoke is "I could be <watching/reading/playing X> instead". Sometimes the creators want to make a homage or acknowledge they aren't talented enough to match the original work, but it can't just be the same thing.

and they're in the same series come on
---

To say using the same general guidelines as the Hero's Journey is the same thing as using pretty much the exact same major plot points from another movie within the same serious is laughable.
---

Samurai7 posted...

To say using the same general guidelines as the Hero's Journey is the same thing as using pretty much the exact same major plot points from another movie within the same serious is laughable.

uh, if a new hope rips off the hero's journey and the force awakens rips off a new hope aren't both of them ultimately ripping off the hero's journey?

maybe i'm dumb but i don't really see the difference.
---

The hero's journey is a broad template and A New Hope is a specific story. Sure TFA consciously poses itself as monomyth but does that really excuse the lack of originality?

like, i don't get the "a new hope is just following the hero's journey in very general ways and the force awakens is a carbon copy of a new hope" argument. it's not like TFA is about duke piewalker or anything. in fact, there's some pretty big differences between TFA and ANH (for instance, the main antagonist in ANH is a badass and in TFA it's a whiny emo kid). if you want to talk about "ripping off" both movies follow the hero's journey template more than anything else.
---

NFUN posted...

It's just a remake of A New Hope with a bunch of stuff tacked on that I dislike or even hate. "There are only 6 stories", sure, but each iteration should be unique in some way or add something of meaning. The Force Awakens really doesn't.

How can you hate the new things it added if it's the same thing? This is why I'm saying you're applying an impossible standard to it.

Obviously there's stuff that's a copy from 4, and obviously there's stuff that's totally new and unlike anything in the series. Literally all media does this. All your favorite movies and shows and especially games with sequels do this. The problem here is you didn't like the new stuff, and therefore you didn't like the movie. Fine, just say that. But don't try to argue that it's some sort of objective fact that it's bad because there's nothing new in there.

I don't care much about Star Wars either but if I apply the same judgments that I do to other media, I liked it. I also liked Dynasty Warriors 3 through 8. I liked Undertale a lot more, because it's deeply unique and fresh, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate how the improved presentation in DW7 took the classic formula to another level. Just like TFA added a multi dimensional villain, crazy lightsaber fights, a more reserved main character, an epic death scene with really good cinematography, etc.
---

The Godfather 2 has similar themes and some plot points compared to the first. They're also quite different movies.

Kill Bill 1 and 2 are both about revenge but aren't even close to 1:1 comparisons.

There's a lot of walking and fighting and talking in the Lord of the Rings movies, but, justly, nobody is complaining that they're all the same thing.

It's a matter of degree. All works are on some level derivative, but it's not the same to have a similar base and build upon it differently as to be the same thing. If you took the storyboard for ANH and TFA and erased the specific character and location names, you'd have almost indistinguishable movies. It's not that they are both Hero's Journeys. It's that it's the same journey taken by slightly different heroes. And as I said, sure, this could work if it's done intentionally and with prudence for thematic reasons, but TFA goes way overboard.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

like, i don't get the "a new hope is just following the hero's journey in very general ways and the force awakens is a carbon copy of a new hope" argument. it's not like TFA is about duke piewalker or anything. in fact, there's some pretty big differences between TFA and ANH (for instance, the main antagonist in ANH is a badass and in TFA it's a whiny emo kid). if you want to talk about "ripping off" both movies follow the hero's journey template more than anything else.

you arent even saying that the movies are different in any substantial way, just that the main characters have somewhat different personalities.

I appreciate that the villain has more depth in this movie instead of needing two more films and prequels to do it. I appreciate that they added a supporting protagonist who's going through some shit. That's not what I take umbrage at. The plots. Are. The same. It isn't that the plots are related thematically or are underdog stories or anything like that. theyre the same. They're similar to a far greater degree than any of the strawman crap you're throwing at me. I'd rewatch both movies and write how they follow the same exact path to an obnoxious, unsubtle degree... but I'm not going to do that.
---

Media copies media, but good media will put its own spin on things so it still feels interesting and engaging. The Force Awakens was not interesting or engaging, and a big part of that was because of how similar it feels to A New Hope. The main character is another secret force user from Tatooine, the enemy is another evil army led by an evil superpowerful force user (and it's ridiculous that the good guys call themselves The Rebellion just to make them seem like the underdogs when they are in fact the current ruling government), and there's even Death Star 3.0.

foolm0r0n posted...

I also liked Dynasty Warriors 3 through 8. I liked Undertale a lot more, because it's deeply unique and fresh, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate how the improved presentation in DW7 took the classic formula to another level.

There is no series where I am happy with small incremental sequels. People grow tired of things that feel the same as before, and this is such a natural part of human nature that I'm not sure why it's difficult to understand.
---

NFUN posted...

And as I said, sure, this could work if it's done intentionally and with prudence for thematic reasons, but TFA goes way overboard.

Well could thing that it was done intentionally and with prudence for thematic reasons.

"Our story has always been a generational one."
---

NFUN posted...

you arent even saying that the movies are different in any substantial way, just that the main characters have somewhat different personalities.

...the main characters having different personalities is NOT "a substantial difference"?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

NFUN posted...

you arent even saying that the movies are different in any substantial way, just that the main characters have somewhat different personalities.

...the main characters having different personalities is NOT "a substantial difference"?

If it doesn't alter the plot to a substantial degree, no. The Kylo Ren stuff made for a difference, but not really Rey.

scarletspeed7 posted...

NFUN posted...

And as I said, sure, this could work if it's done intentionally and with prudence for thematic reasons, but TFA goes way overboard.

Well could thing that it was done intentionally and with prudence for thematic reasons.

"Our story has always been a generational one."

yeah but i dont think it was done with prudence is the thing
---

I mean, I don't think your comparisons are made with prudence when you compare movies with direct continuing stories to the start of entirely new chapters in dormant series.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

The Force Awakens was not interesting or engaging, and a big part of that was because of how similar it feels to A New Hope

I found it very engaging and at least satisfactorily interesting. Weird how that works.

KamikazePotato posted...

There is no series where I am happy with small incremental sequels. People grow tired of things that feel the same as before, and this is such a natural part of human nature that I'm not sure why it's difficult to understand.

Me neither but I gave an extreme example because obviously we have all enjoyed incremental things at some point. Obviously you can get over saturated and fatigued with repetitive stuff, no one is denying that, but are 2 similar movies 40 years apart really doing that to you?

Like take your stances to the logical extreme: have you ever enjoyed watching a movie or some other media a second time? I don't think this is relevant for TFA and ANH at all since that is giving you guys way too much credit, but it illustrates the point. You're talking as if it's impossible for you to enjoy watching something more than once, ever, as if that's perfectly normal. It's pretty ludicrous. Especially considering this argument is on a message board we've been at for 10+ years.

Obviously if you don't like the movie, you're not gonna enjoy watching it the second time. But that's because you don't like the movie, not because you've seen it already. And even in that case, how is it hard to understand that if someone DID like that movie, they might enjoy watching it that second time?

You just don't like the damn movie. That's it.
---

i made a short speech about how trying to view media in an objective lens is stupid navelgazing. I'm not trying to say that I'm right and you're wrong about the quality of the movie. I don't like the movie. These reasons are why I don't like the movie.

this fucking debate started after I said I didn't like the movie without any support behind it and now people are pissy because I explained why
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Obviously you can get over saturated and fatigued with repetitive stuff, no one is denying that, but are 2 similar movies 40 years apart really doing that to you?

This might have merit if A New Hope wasn't the most revisited movie in existence and is absolutely pervasive in popular culture. It doesn't feel like A New Hope came out 40 years ago - it feels like it came out pretty recently because it never stopped mattering or being talked about in the first place. This is especially true for people who frequent nerd forums. I could play out the entirety of ANH in my head and I don't even like Star Wars that much. I wanted TFA to deliver a fresh experience and it didn't - it just felt like more of the same.

Like take your stances to the logical extreme: have you ever enjoyed watching a movie or some other media a second time?

Yes

but it illustrates the point.

No. It is far easier to revisit something that gave you a fresh experience than it is to try and enjoy something that feels derivative.
---

NFUN posted...

i made a short speech about how trying to view media in an objective lens is stupid navelgazing.

I'll keep that in mind when people say Shakespeare is worse than Twilight and under your new world order, I can't disagree.
---

NFUN posted...

this fucking debate started after I said I didn't like the movie without any support behind it and now people are pissy because I explained why

Star Wars triggers people really badly. The reaction to The Last Jedi is the most insane reaction to a piece of media that I've ever seen a fanbase have. Every single Star Wars discussion I've seen since that movie came out has been people being angry about something (usually each other).
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

NFUN posted...

i made a short speech about how trying to view media in an objective lens is stupid navelgazing.

I'll keep that in mind when people say Shakespeare is worse than Twilight and under your new world order, I can't disagree.

I don't want to find what I wrote earlier but the gist was that any objective metric you try to make had its criteria subjectively chosen. Sure, there are pretty reasonable requirements you can make, but there are always going to be people who disagree, and fundamentally, their opinion means as much as anybody else's.

I don't really care to argue this because it's stupid. I just said it because I want to make it clear I'm not trying to say that I'm the end-all, be-all authority on any of this and that I'm just stating my opinion, so stop taking things so personally.
---

NFUN posted...

so stop taking things so personally.

I made two posts in this discussion, I don't think you can remotely qualify that as taking anything personally.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

No. It is far easier to revisit something that gave you a fresh experience than it is to try and enjoy something that feels derivative.

Even if it's bad?
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

NFUN posted...

so stop taking things so personally.

I made two posts in this discussion, I don't think you can remotely qualify that as taking anything personally.

not you
---

NFUN posted...

this fucking debate started after I said I didn't like the movie without any support behind it and now people are pissy because I explained why

I agree you shouldn't have engaged in the argument but here we are

You ARE distinctly taking the "objective" approach here though, since it's not subjective whether the movie was a copy. It either was, or it wasn't. And you've tied your opinion to that fact so now you have to argue the fact as if it's your opinion. Just a bad position in general.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

NFUN posted...

this fucking debate started after I said I didn't like the movie without any support behind it and now people are pissy because I explained why

I agree you shouldn't have engaged in the argument but here we are

You ARE distinctly taking the "objective" approach here though, since it's not subjective whether the movie was a copy. It either was, or it wasn't.

why? Nobody is going to disagree that there are similar aspects between the two. Nobody in the topic has. The contention was twofold: to what degree the similarities are, and whether or not it matters. I take the position that there were a ton of similarities in obtrusive ways and it matters a lot. So does KP. Yours is more that everything is similar to some degree, but it doesn't matter a whole lot either way. Lasa thinks that they aren't too similar.

These viewpoints are nuanced. It's not objective, whether by inheritance or argument.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

No. It is far easier to revisit something that gave you a fresh experience than it is to try and enjoy something that feels derivative.

Even if it's bad?

Yeah, because even if your tastes have changed and you think something that you used to enjoy is now bad, you still at least have some good memories attached to it that can provoke a nostalgic reaction. There's tons of pieces of media that don't really hold up but are considered to be 'classics' so they end up getting a pass. Is it fair? Probably not, but:

1. Emotions aren't easy to control and nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
2. Leeway is given to pieces of media that create the mold or template for a genre. There is an expectation that, after the mold is created, subsequent works will break the mold to some degree - and pieces of media that don't break the mold at all are rarely considered to be engaging.

(Although I don't think ANH or TFA are bad movies so I'm not even sure why I typed all that out)
---

So anyway, about this new Avengers movie... *cough*
---

Waluigi1 posted...

So anyway, about this new Avengers movie... *cough*

?
---

Why is Gamora?
---

we're here to kick names
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Why is Gamora?

to be FIERCE and GREEN
---

NFUN posted...

so stop taking things so personally.

i wasn't (assuming this was directed at me).

(also MJ in homecoming wasn't mary jane so why would anyone cry about her being black?)
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

If you want diversity done in the SJW tyrant lane, go watch The Last Jedi or Ghostbusters 2016. Both movies are unadulterated, 100% shitshow garbage.

I'm legit curious, does the camera hanging on Asian people and a character having pink hair make the movie 100% SJW tyrant shitshow garbage, or do I need extra-crazy goggles to see the deeper, maniacal SJW agenda here?
---