Skills and strength are not the only aspects of what define a character. Personality, motivation, flaws, and beliefs are all other aspects of a character that can change as they are on a Journey. Yes Indiana does not gain new skills or strength but the character change is there. Especially in Temple of Doom. And while Indy is capable he is constantly getting beat up, shot, captured, tortured and put throw trials that force him to overcome what he thinks are his limitation. I do not see his arc as flat as all throughout the individual films, it is an arc of character not of skills. I will acknowledge however that his arcs are basically reset each film and he has the same arc basically 3 times.
Walter White is not an antagonist, he is the protagonist that is a anti hero. Gus Fringe, Cancer, the Nazi's, the police, etc are the antagonist of the story. While I agree with you that any type of arc can be good, what you can't do is reject the arc altogether or make some strange hybrid such as they did with Rey; whom I would argue has no arc in skills, strength, personality or nobility of character. She is exactly the same person as when we first met her. The skills she acquires are not through learning them, she simply gets them when she tries them the first time.
I have never heard people claim Joker was a 'shallow' villain. Almost everyone I know of universally praises the ambiguity of his backstory. a backstory is also not really needed to know a characters motivation. But again, in both the case of the Joker and Anton, they are the antagonist (unlike Walter White) and they do not usually have a character arc.
A protagonist can be a villain and a good guy can be the antagonist of a story, but almost always whatever role your protagonist fills they need to go on some kind of arc otherwise the film comes across as shallow, Like the Fast and Furious movies which are lousy stories and cheap action. Which is what Rey has basically done with star wars.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Temple of Doom as you know takes place before Raiders does. In all honesty Temple of Doom creates a continuity issue for the franchise. Why after Temple of Doom does Indy say he does not believe in any superstitious mumbo jumbo if he had already gone through Temple of Doom? You basically confirmed my point about there not being real change in his character. If there is change why does it reset and become the same each film?
I have heard plenty of people complain about the Joker being a shallow villain. I was pointing out that an antagonist can have a back story. Is it always needed no but they can have a back story. Green Goblin from Spider-man is the antagonist, however we see why he becomes Green Goblin and how he got created. You got me on Walt being the protagonist. However you could make the case that he is the antagonist hidden in protagonists clothes. I will let you have that one though.
I will give you several flat character arcs which are positive. Remember they may end up in different places but the fundamental belief they have stays the same. They have a truth they believe in which changes the world around them. Maximus Gladiator, Forrest Gump, Marty McFly Back to the future and Andy Dufresne Shawshank Redemption. They may experience self doubt but they never give up trying to reform the world around them. Most of the time the supporting cast around the flat arc does change.
Every character is going through some sort of arc it is up to you whether it is well done or not. Ask this what new skills does Maximus learn throughout Gladiator? None he has his skill sets just like Indy from the start of the story. What changes about his fundamental beliefs? Nothing. Thus being a flat arc. Same goes for the other characters I listed.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
As I said, skill growth is not equivalent character growth. Maximus has an up and down and back up character arc, it is actually a beautifully done character arc. Yes he does not gain new skills but I would consider skill gaining to not even be an important aspect of character development, which is why the skill gathering of The Matrix did not matter because it was automatically uploaded skills, it is what NEo does with those skills that gross his character.
Rey as far as i can see has the automatically uploaded skills without an plot tool to explain it and at the same time as far as I can see has no character arc whatsoever. Her character at the end of Last Jedi is the same as she was at the beginning of Force Awakens. Name one difference in her character between the end of last jedi and beginning of force awakens?
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Lots of people love to see a character learn new skills. It makes the character s lot easier to relate to when you see them gain these new skills. The reason it is easier to relate to is because no one starts out perfectly. However characters like Indiana Jones are something we aspire to be. We love them because we want to be them. A character like Peter Parker from Sam Raimi's Spider-man is one we can relate to but do not necessarily want to be. Both types serve their purpose quite well. You are correct though a character gaining a skill or learning them is not required for an engaging experience.
Rey's struggle is internal rather than external. Rey starts out thinking she has no value in the Star Wars universe and thinking she is jut a nobody. Slowly she realizes she has so much value for the Star Wars universe it is overwhelming her.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Rey starts out thinking she has no real value and after the last scene with Kylo after Snoke is dead, she is still unclear if she has any value. Her reaction to hearing her parents were nobodies sums this up. 2 films in and she still has not developed any place in the story other than being the best at everything and solving all problems for the other characters. She servers the story more like a plot tool than a character.
I fail to see how she "slowly realizes she has so much value for the universe it is overwhelming her". This you will have to elaborate on a bit.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
On a side note; I would agree with you on Marty McFly having a pretty flat character arc and Forrest Gump and Andy Dufresne basically having no character arc at all.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Forrest Gump, and Shawshank Redemption are highly regarded films of cinema. This proves my point that a flat arc can still be successful as well as engaging to a large portion of people. So here is the question for you why is it Rey gets critiqued so harshly when Forrest Gump and Andy Dfresne by your own admission have no character arc? They do have an arc but it is of course a flat one. Why do they get a free pass on it but Rey does not?
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
I think both are grossly overrated films. I actually hate Forrest Gump and think he is a garbage character that gets a pass because his lack of understanding of the world around him makes him a pathetic character that the audience is manipulated into feeling good when he succeeds in life, this causes them to ignore the fact that he is a bland character with no arc and ignore the frustrating fact that people that have no real understanding cannot always be so successful. In fact being as slow and disadvantaged as he is, there is no good reason why he should be a significantly involved participant of the some of the most important events of the last 50 years.
Rey gets critiqued more harshly though because 1. within the universe she stands out for all the wrong reasons (badly written, overpowered, no real struggle to achieve victory, etc). 2. She is on this odd inversion or hybrid heroes journey that is contrasting the archetypal heroes journey in a bad way that does not leave the audience relating to the character or feel bad for her, as in the case of Forrest or Andy. you can't relate to her because she is too good at everything/ too quickly loved+accepted by others and you can't feel bad for her because she is not pathetic or suffering.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
It is fine if you think both are overrated films but it shows you can have success with a flat character arc. I disagree on Forrest Gump being a garbage character he does have an arc it is just a positive flat one. A positive flat arc has a belief they hold to be true. They do not change but the world around them does. They influence other characters to change. They change locations and may end up in a different place but their beliefs remain the same. I do not get your point about how people with no understanding can not always be successful. That is true but sometimes they can, did the film imply that those who do not know anything can always be successful?
So are you saying that because someone is slow and disadvantaged they can not be involved in important events in history? He was slow and at a disadvantage, he had drive though. That can get you far in life. I honestly believe you are just not a fan of the positive flat arc. Which is fine but I guess I do not care what archetype something is, I care if it is executed well. Alien is honestly just a slasher film set in space. Is there anything Oscar worthy about that screenplay? Nope but it was executed so well it made the film a classic.
I personally can feel for her on some level. Not knowing your importance or how much you can offer the world plagues many people throughout life.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
What do you mean by 'success'? Plenty of bad movies have success, doesn't make them good. I always would argue Forrest has any arc at all, he is manipulatively depicted as being too dumb to learn, in fact it suggests he is exactly the same at the end of the film as he was when he was a young boy.
the only reason it is viewed as a good film is because it is a clever manipulation that leaves the audience feeling good for feeling bad for him.
Now I would agree that the other characters around him do have arcs, but still think it is an overrated film and that the character is garbage. But then I tend to lash out a bit when I feel like I am being manipulated.
It is unrealistic, one does not wonder through life stumbling into some of the most important events in history. It simply does not happen and is somewhat insulting to the people that dedicated their lives to a cause and still did not get as intimately involved in a single one of those events. Drive gets you no where if you have no direction.
I do not like the flat arc because it makes for bad characters. Films can be good in-spite of bad characters, but it is rare and the characters are usually a hindrance and not an advantage.
I disagree on Alien being only a slasher film, it touches on some more disturbing (sexual) imagery, has good solidly written characters, and leaves this great feeling of unknown. That is far more than a typical slasher film.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Success is measured in many aspects. However I was referring to cultural impact, well received by the majority of people and critical acclaim as well. Both Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption are considered classic films. You are not the sole authority on what makes a movie good or bad. A movie does not need your stamp of approval in order for others to consider it good. There are some films that people absolutely adore that I personally do not like. Thing is I realize I am in the minority and just realize there are things people enjoy that I do not. A lot of people want to to delude themselves into thinking that because someone enjoys something they don't there must be something wrong with them. It can't stop at hey we disagree no people have to take it to a juvenile level.
I was not aware a film had to be realistic in order to be good? Drive can guide you to direction. Forrest did have direction from his Mom.
Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption showcases you are wrong there bud. I know you dislike them and consider them overrated but it proves my point the flat arc can work and be iconic. People remember Forrest Gump and Shawshank and adore those films. I myself enjoy them as well. It is your opinion they are bad characters the majority does not agree and neither do I.
Alien is one of my favorite films of all time. The screenplay would not win any sort of Oscar when pit against other films. A film like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest or Silence of the Lambs have a much deeper layered screenplay than Alien does. I say that and I prefer Alien over those films.
What makes Alien good is how well visually it is done. The creature design is quite unique and I agree the characters are well done. Remember though Ripley truly became an icon in Aliens the same way Sarah Connor became an icon in Terminator 2. I did not refer to Alien as a typical slasher film. I said if you want to truly break it down it is a slasher. Mad Max Fury Road could easily be dismissed as just a constant car chase with no depth. Once you look deeper those films have tons to offer even if it is simplistic or a streamlined story.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
I will say this, I acknowledge that both FG and Shaw. are good to even great movies. I just do not like them and think they do not deserve to be considered among the best films ever. I can distinguish though between my subjective opinion and objective merits of film. So i agree with you to a point. You might prefer Alien over One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest (I would too) but I would also acknowledge that the latter is objectively a better film.
Now a film does not have to be realistic to be good but if realism or aiming to be among real historical events, then it follows the film should aim for realistic characters. Forrest Gump himself is not a realistic character among characters, settings and plots that are realistic. This is objective. now my opinion of this is it makes the film bad because the contrast of the unrealistic cartoon like character among real meaningful history I found annoying. But that is my subjective take on that film.
But we are digressing horribly here, the fact of the matter is I would argue Rey has no character arc whatsoever. It is not flat, it is nonexistent because compared to Gump he has a character, it is just one that is already 'arrived' as fully development. Rey is a character that seems to have an arrived (flat) character but they treat her like she is on the hero's journey which is not a flat character arc and at the same time gave no reason as to how she is an already fully developed character, unlike Gump who has a reason for being fully developed (just not a good reason IMO). For Rey it was like they wanted both but did neither effectively.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
I myself am not a huge fan of the original Star Wars trilogy. I like them fine but they do not rise and set the sun for me like they do for most people. I recognize the acclaim, cultural impact as well as the things it pioneered for cinema. I appreciate that, but I myself think other film series are better written, and acted than that series. Lord of the Rings being a prime example of in my opinion better in every conceivable way of film making.
I get your subjective view but personally I disagree.
Rey discovering her importance is her arc. Now honestly I think this is the issue. I myself find Finn the best character the Disney series has come up with thus far. He actually has a new refreshing arc never seen before. One of the empire's people turning good. I personally get annoyed though when people say Rey defeated Kylo with ease. Remember Kylo was bleeding in the Force Awakens after a shot from Chewie's crossbow earlier in the film. You see him bleeding before the battle even begins. Finn then delivers a blow to him before Rey gets her shot at it. People act as if he was at full strength with no scratches on him. Did people watch the film?
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
I am a big fan of both the OT and LOTR. LOTR is overall superior though; I think most can objectively agree even if they subjectively prefer star wars.
I appreciate and respect your disagreement with my subjective view. I hope I made my point clear on how I distinguish between objective analysis and subjective opinion.
But that is just it, discovering her importance is her searching for a character arc; and 2 films in she still has not found an arc to even begin yet; now it is too late. Searching for an arc is not the same as going on a arc. She is on a hero's journey in motions only without actually any internal arc for the character going on. She is in the same place as when we first see her; searching for meaning to her life, or searching for her place in the universe. She has found no answers yet and her character has not grown
Finn had more potential but they really botched that potential by making him more a pathetic bumbling side kick to Rey. They really go out of there way to make him look clownish next to her and that is not at all how a indoctrinated child soldier would behave. but Finn is a completely different subject. We can discuss the 'faults' of his character as well but honestly I do not take as much issue with Finn as I do Rey (who I view as the most significant factor of the new trilogy failing story).
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
No I would disagree with you there. There are plenty of people who will fight until their dying breath that OT Star Wars is superior to LOTR. LOTR is not the only trilogy superior to the OT Star Wars. All these trilogies are superior.
The Before trilogy
The Three Colors trilogy
I will fight those being better overall. I also think The Dark Knight trilogy, the new planet of the apes trilogy, and the Dollars trilogy are superior also.
See that is just it why does her arc have to be found out right away? I just do not understand this. It is like if it doesn't follow what you are use to seeing it gets dismissed. Sometimes stories tell things in a way people are not use to seeing. It does not make them terrible because of it. People already have their mind made up about the third film before even seeing it. If that is the case then do not go see it. Vote with your wallet and just move on with life.
Disagree with them botching Finn. I personally do not think they made him look clownish next to her. I personally think they have shown he shown that he is a lost person struggling with where he fits into the world. Someone who is indoctrinated can relate to that. I will not lie the fact that people hate these new Disney Star Wars films makes me enjoy them even more. I feel these toxic fans deserve their childhood being destroyed. I hope it continues to dump on their overrated OT Star Wars, that trilogy is massively overrated to begin with.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
People can have an objective discussion of things like on merit which films are better when sizing up things like Godfather trilogy vs Lord of the rings. The final say on which one prefers is subjective and some of the merits that are noticed might be swayed by someone's subjective feelings on the films in question. But there are still objective standards and even if someone prefers SW or LOTR, LOTR would widely be accepted as the better quality film.
"See that is just it why does her arc have to be found out right away? I just do not understand this."
Because you cannot follow a directionless character for 2 films when the narrative is putting all the focus on that character. Now they have to rush to have her find an arc or ignore the fact that the 1st 2 films failed to give her one. Either it is a narrative mess.
"It is like if it doesn't follow what you are use to seeing it gets dismissed. "
The story structures have been in place for thousands of years. filmmakers ignore these structures at their own risk. We are developed from an evolutionary/physiological perspective to respond to a certain type of narrative structure. Only in this postmodernist/relativism 'everything is subjective' era of art can we find acceptance of such garbage being presented as art. Here is a video I liked that discussed this trend in artistry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
"People already have their mind made up about the third film before even seeing it."
That is because the first 2 films are garbage and have absolutely no build up to pay off with. You can tell a third act will suck if the first 2 suck. usually you can tell by the end of the 1st act. I did not see any of the Disney era star wars in theater and only paid to see TFA. The others I was shown by a friend that really wanted me to watch them to 'give them a chance' and I hated them all. So I have voted with my wallet. but I am still entertained with seeing them get shredded by critics
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Again I agree but tons of Star Wars fans will not give the edge to LOTR. Whatever people like more is what they give the edge to. Most people do not have the ability to be unbiased. The original Star Wars trilogy is overrated big time in my book.
In your opinion you can not follow a character that is directionless. Rules are broken all the time. Many times in history it has paid off not following a rule book.
The first two films are garbage according to who? You? The Force Awakens by every metric meter disagrees with that view. It's scores on Rottentomatoes, Metacritic as well as imdb do not support that notion. It has better data than any of the prequels do. Critics shred them? Check Rottentomatoes, and metacritic scores for both TFA and Last Jedi. Both films have great scores. Oh you mean youtube people online not critics. Think before making that claim next time. That was incorrect.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Your first paragraph I agree with, subjectivity can be the final thing that gives the edge to the judgement of the film, but there has to be some objective or there cannot be any baseline for anyone to agree on over. I could say The Room is the greatest cinematic masterpiece of all time and who could say I am wrong? Even if people find humor in how bad it is, it is an objectively poor made film.
Rules are broken and rarely pay off, most of they do not. But if the rules are broken takes a special type of competence in writing to pull off. JJ Abrams is not known for his competent writing.
Okay, garbage might be too harsh. I think it is the worst star wars movie for many reasons. I also say it is objectively badly written film that got good reviews from audiences and critics because it was competently put together film, people are suckers for nostalgia and open ended mysteries they can giddily speculate over, and people were desperate to love it because the general dislike of the prequels. Even those praising it acknowledge it was weak on character development too many plot conveniences and was generally a inferior rehash. I would read these review wondering why a 5 star review would bash a film. Odd isn't it.
Did you see the audience score for Last Jedi? I trust the audience over the critics on this one, less then 50%; literally half the people hated. only bad films have over half of people hate it. The thing is, I say the reason Last jedi was so hated was because TFA was a bad film that people were too caught up in to realize it set nothing up to come next in a satisfactory way; there was never going to be a payoff. More and more people are seeing it.
I do think before I make a claim; Critics have loved bad films in the past especially during hyper partisan times and high risk towards the critics losing first viewing rights, the question then becomes how does it reflect after many years
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
When a film is well received critically, by the general public and has cultural impact the debate becomes flexible. The Room only has cultural memorable impact because of how bad it is. Take a film like Godfather and Schindler's List. Both are cinematic masterpieces. Both have tremendous acclaim by the public by critics, cultural impact as well as studied by film historians. These films are studied in film schools. Which one is better? That one is so close it boils down to opinion. There is no such thing as THE greatest movie ever made in my book. Are there classics and greats sure but no THE GOAT movie that is silly.
Rules being broken have paid off before. Do they always nope but sometimes it can pay off.
Bottom line is when you said garbage I can not disagree more. I found the prequels far worse in many ways. So when you claim The Worst I question your ability to be objective there. See that is just it why not just hey I disagree with the majority there. I do not make up conspiracies on movies I dislike that the general public loves. I just say okay whatever the reason they enjoyed something I did not. I leave it at that.
I did see the score for Last Jedi. Guess what I know you agree with the audience because they agree with you. Myself I trust critics over the audience. Do I always agree with critics no but I put more stock in them than the general public. It supports my Star Wars theory nothing after Empire Strikes Back will be universally loved. There can be stuff where people go meh it was okay. Anything after empire Strikes back will never receive anything higher than that from these toxic fans.
Audiences have also loved bad films in the past. What is your point?
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Again I agree with your first paragraph 100%.
Rules can be broken and pay off but it takes a high level of competence from the writer. JJ is a clever filmmaker and good at recreating the imagery we all love but he is not known as a competent film writer.
The writing is garbage and even the people that love the film admit this, just in different way. They say a 'safe rehash' or something to that affect. That is admitting it was weak writing without admitting it.
It is fine that we disagree on which is worse; for me Clones and TFA are close, I actually like TLJ about equal with Clones so all 3 are pretty bad in my opinion. TLJ is more hated by audiences than any of the prequels. I don't put the blame for that on TLJ though, I put the blame on TFA for not setting up a story that could achieve a proper pay off.
Like I said we can have some discussion on our subjective takes on things but first we have to agree on the objective merits. You keep wanting to deflect into the subjective before we have agreed on the objective.
So let us try to start again, do you think Rey is a well written character that fits into the narrative and provides either an arc for herself or for the story itself?
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
You just admitted rules being broken can be pay off. That dispels your way of thinking that you always have to follow the rules. I agree writing is not one of JJ's strong suit but that does not mean he is terrible either.
Weak writing and garbage are not the same. The Room is garbage. The fact that the movie was competently put together shows it is not garbage.
I hate all of the prequels worse than this new trilogy. My personal most hated film in the franchise is attack of the clones. So we can somewhat reach common ground there. The romance was cringe worthy and Hayden Christensen's acting was awful as Annakin. To be fair though the character was written terrible and even Natalie Portman acted bad in these films.
We agreed on objective merits. A film is measured on many things. Writing, acting, cinematography, editing, costume design, set design, visual effects, cgi, sound, music etc. A film like Gravity excels more sore in it's visuals than it does in some mind blowing screenplay. Very rarely do you find a film that excels in every single category. They are out there but those are the gems you do not see a whole lot. An example of excelling amazingly is Lord of the Rings. There are others but that one is one of them.
I believe she provides an arc for the story itself. I believe the conflict is within herself. There are a few kinds of conflicts. Man vs Man, Man vs Nature, Man vs Himself, and Man vs Society. Rey is within herself. Slowly as each movie passes she is realizing what she means to the world. It is not instant but it is ongoing. Until this conflict is resolved she will continue to pursue exactly what that conflict is. She has abandonment issues. Her mental setbacks is what makes her interesting not the setbacks themselves.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Yes it can pay off, but very strong writing skills are required. Since JJ was the writer in this case and we both agree he is not strong at writing; I think it rests the case that TFA was a badly written film.
Agreed on it not being the same; Garbage was a hyperbole and if that derailed the conversation I apologize; I think we both admit the films have very weak writing though, correct?
I think we have a good ground on objective merits of film making. now each aspect can be discussed on what it takes for those aspects to be good and there will be some subjectivity to each persons interpretation of those categories but at least there is a baseline.
If you are correct, then her arc is solely internal and has no outward affect on her personality or actions. This is a problem, how else can you demonstrate internal conflict if the character never appears to compromise on her decisions or nobility, is seemingly resolved on her intent, does not get swayed or manipulated, and never demonstrates any outward self doubt. Well except the few lines that she actually speaks about not knowing who she is. Well she can join the club, 2 films in and no one knows who she is or why we should care.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Badly written and not excelling at writing are two different things.
Let me ask a question if a film is simplistic does that mean it is badly written? I feel like with you there is no in between it is either an Oscar worthy screenplay or it is trash.
We can agree on the basic measurements of film.
I did not say her arc was perfect now did I? Here is the thing though it would not matter what people did for the third movie no one is prepped to like the third film. I do not believe in going in closed minded like that. Could it be that Star Wars was overrated and overhyped to the point of absurdity? I am sorry man the franchise is not what people tout it to be. Even the OT has corny acting, stilted dialogue, and major tone issues. They recycle stuff and I just find it to be a series that gets the bulk of it's praise on what it did for the blockbuster than how it works as an overall film.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
To try to break away from standard story structure requires a high degree of writing prowess, if the writer is not very good and tries it becomes a mess; this is equivelant with calling it bad writing. Stop being dense. Everyone, those that even liked TFA, admit it was weak writing. even you admit it. let us see how objective you can be. Which film had the worse writing TFA or Attack of the clones?
TFA was not simplistic, that is the problem; it tried to be more that it should have been and ended up falling flat on its face. 'Suite the action to the word and the word to the action that you overstep not the modesty of nature'. A film can be good and enjoyable with simplistic writing. I enjoyed the film The nice Guys. that is pretty simple writing. TFA was bad because it was too many open plot holes, conveniences, and open ended mysteries that left nothing but empty speculation because there was no actual answer. That is qualities of BAD WRITING. Do you dispute that TFA was guilty of these 'sins'? if so why. Try to make an actual argument this time instead of claiming 'i know writing better than you too'.
Her arc is not imperfect it is non-existent. For the love god make an actual argument instead of deflecting. You claimed her arc was internal I argued this was never actually shown and then you just never answered to that.
The OT are solid films despite the campy dialogue. I would not say the acting of the OT was corny; you will have to explain your subjective opinion on this; most critics would agree the dialogue was a bit much but I never see regular critic of the acting itself. What tone issues does the OT have? I do not even know what you are talking about.
Lucas did not 'recycle stuff' he took archetypes put them together in a new setting and executed that combination well. Using archetypes is not a bad thing, that is why they are there; they are effective tools for story telling when used properly but can backfire if ignored.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Lol I am not being dense, I just do not agree with your notion. Attack of the Clones had worse writing. Worse acting and much worse dialogue. You are the one in the minority here. TFA was better received by critics and audiences over Attack of the Clones. Which means it is seen as the better film regardless of what you or I think. That is an objective fact. Do you have the ability to be objective? You think Attack of the Clones is better well the majority thinks you are wrong.
I did not claim I knew writing better than you. Do not place words in my mouth I did not say. Empire Strikes Back left on a major cliffhanger.
Um I answered this already. You just are not satisfied and want more. She has struggles with finding out where she belongs. This is seen constantly. She is worried about where she comes from. Being abandoned not knowing her importance etc. When she talks to Maz in TFA she is afraid of what she might find out about her upbringing in Jakku. Whether you enjoy it or not that is internal conflict. Man vs himself.
The only true solid acting in the OT is from Obi Wan Kenobi. I thought this was about our thoughts and not critics? You want to appeal the the authority now. I am criticizing the acting mainly from Harrison Ford as well as Carrie Fisher. Tone issues oh boy. How about how we go from dark scenes with the emperor and then transition to little teddy bears taking out the all mighty scary empire? How about how Luke asks Han to reach his lightsaber when they are tied up when he can just use the force.
Yes he did recycle stuff. Death Star was reused in Return of the Jedi we saw that already in A new Hope.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Actually most people that I have read admit that the writing of the Prequels was not the problem it was the execution. So actually I think you are in the minority here since we are supposed to be discussing the quality of writing and not how well the film was received. Both are bad films I don't give a damn how well people liked it, in this case they were wrong and the proof will keep showing more and more and the flaws of the empty plot are revealed with this last film. I don't know if I agree about ATtack having the worse dialogue; there was no "you got a cute boyfriend' stuff in the prequels.
Well you had no problem claiming you knew choreography better than me, i didn't put those words in your mouth. You did. I figured the second your lack of arguments was exposed you would fall back on something similar.
You didn't answer my question on how her internal struggle is shown on screen. How do you even know she is having an internal struggle. So NO you DIDN'T answer this. She talks about this stuff once in each film and it is never present in any of her actions. This fails the 'show don't tell test' another hallmark of bad writing. You can't just have someone in a horror film say out loud 'i am afraid' but then go and kick the monsters ass then turn around and say 'did you see how afraid they were?' That does not work.
Ah so your only issue is with ROTJ. Every criticism you bring up is from 1 out of the 3 films and almost everyone agrees with you on those, myself included. This does not mean the first 2 are made worse by what comes after. A film can only be made worse by what comes before it.
when you said 'recycle' I thought you were talking about something deeper with archetypes and imagery that transcends time that Lucas used in writing for A New Hope. I should have assumed you meant something far more shallow, like 'did you see him recycle the death star'? BTW if this is the case where the hell is your outrage for Starkiller base?
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Again are we talking about other people or we talking about yourself? Anakin was written poorly. This is suppose to be a young Vader and you made him a completely unlikable crybaby. That is in the writing the bad acting just made it worse. You remember your mother? Remember that line from the OT? Remember Leia's answer? Funny how Padme died right after birth which made a continuity issue. No both films are not bad you just do not like them. Forrest Gump and Shawshank are great films the only thing stopping you from calling them bad is the objective data. I do not give a damn what you think about the new films. The reception disputes your claim. Cute boyfriend. Lol ok so lines like these are so much more high brow. It's all OBi Wan's fault it's not fair! Remember a young Vader is saying this. The sand line, I am haunted by the kiss you should never have given me. Man such more high brow! Eye roll!
Then why as a kid if Anakin behave like an angel then in the sequel he is a temperamental brat? The character is inconsistent. Isn't the Jedi training supposed to calm you down make you more humble. Why didn't they make him heroic and likable? Even an evil character or bad character can attract women because they have a strong likable quality to them. Han Solo being a prime example. What was likable and strong about Anakin? Why would a girl with Padme's stature fall for a whiny little brat? Anakin turning to the dark side was a terrible negative arc. He was a sith from the word go he just did not know it. Seeing Anakin fall should have been tragic, that is what makes a negative arc compelling. They failed here. Walter White is a negative arc done way better than this. Lets take a movie though and not a series. Harvey Dent from The Dark Knight. An example of a way better handled negative arc than Anakin was.
I said I stand corrected. You are just now salty and getting hung on something. You made the claim that Forrest Gump was a garbage character so since you will not let of that claim I am not letting you live that down.
I did answer this. You see this struggle when she talking to Maz. Do you need your hand held? The fact that she runs from the idea of what Maz tells her about the force indicates self doubt and struggle. So yes I did answer this.
Nope I have more issues with ROTJ.
One of my criticisms of TFA was Star Killer Base smart one. I am tired of seeing Death Stars.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
I am getting tired been awake for 24 hours now and worked 18 today, so i am calling it for now; but I will leave on this point about Rey in Maz's bar.
At that point she had not yet been confronted with anything, there was no struggle to overcome self doubt, there was a panic at being thrust into something she was not part of and did not understand. This was not her doubting she could do it, it was here rejecting the offer at first. And she immediately overcomes it without any reason given. Seeing Han die? she barely knew him. So I do not agree at all this was an example of self doubt because she was not yet invested enough to have self doubt.
At this point in the film it is like the same as Luke saying no to Obi-wan's offer to go with him but at that point we had already seen Luke's desire to get away. That actually was self doubt. Rey had no such example of wanting, staring at the stars, or direction or goals in life. She was a blank slate completely content with sitting on Jakuu waiting for her parents. So when she is first confronted with it we have no investment yet in what her character should do in that situation.
So just star killer base, what about BB-8, Desert planet, Star Destroyers, wannabe darth Vader, Emperor 2.0, Empire 2.0, millenium falcon, x-wings, Discount Grand Moffe Tarkin, and almost beat for beat rehash of the entire plot? Or is Deathstar v3 your only gripe? Say this about the prequels as much as they sucked at least they tried new things. I am curious why you are so harsh on Lucas's efforts but so ready to give disney a pass on some of this. If anyone seemingly has an agenda here it is not me.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
So you view the OT as overrated, I am curious of what your actual opinion of TFA is, because basically even the defenders acknowledge it is an inferior rehash of the Original. If you like TFA better than the Original or think that the OT is overrated by TFA is not, I will be highly suspect of your ability to judge anything at an objective level. Which to be honest I am already suspecting based on this conversation.
Basically I think you are full of crap and trying to hide it under a guise of pushing a notion of everything being up to subjective opinion.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Funny how you think you have me pegged. I think the OT is overrated nowhere did I say that TFA is superior. You however made a bogus claim you need to own up to. According to the overwhelming majority TFA is the best Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi. It beat out out all of the prequels by critics as well as the general public. I find the force awakens overrated as well but that is beside the point.
Where did I say everything is up to subjective opinion? I openly said I prefer Alien over One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I however would objectively say One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest is a better film.
What has happened here is you are used to people agreeing with your notion of Star Wars. Since I do not fully agree you want to destroy my credibility. Nice try bud. The data for TFA is objective whether you or I disagree with it or agree with it has no bearing on what the overall majority thought of it. That is objective.
I hope Disney continues to ruin Star Wars for you guys honestly. It makes me giddy with excitement.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Again I said that bad films have been praised by citrics and general audiences at first. In terms of TFA it has taken some time but it's flaws are showing more and more. I already acknowledged saying garbage was too harsh, and admitted that the film was "competently put together". You bit this with all you might and are now trying to deflect from your empty arguments and the fact you have no real defense for the character so you constantly digress into other subjects. this is now the second time you have turned to a fallacy instead of an argument in support of why you think Rey is anything but a terribly written character that has had no arc over 2 films. Instead you try to bring up the popularity of TFA as an excuse; this is called argumentum ad populum fallacy.
You suggested in another discussion that interpretation of an actor performing choreography can be subjective. Trying to leave choreography up to interpretation is like the exact opposite of meaning of the word. So you have been suggesting all along that subjective is to take precedence over objective.
Actually, Mr. I have you pegged, that is the exact opposite of true. I have had about 75% of the people disagree with my take on TFA but have only ever seen garbage or fallacious arguments in support of the films merits. And now you have joined those ranks of poor arguments.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
I openly admitted I do not think Rey is the series strongest character. I said I believe Finn has been the strongest character from this new trilogy. Do you not remember me saying that? To say terribly written I disagree you also think Forrest Gump is terrible I disagree. Flawed absolutely but terrible nah sorry I can not agree. Just like how I did not agree when you said TFA is garbage.
I asked are we discussing the choreography or how Ridley performed the choreography? Two different things. Do you know the choreography inside and out? I directly addressed this and you side stepped it. Remember that mistake I cited from Terminator 2 about the black guy being tossed suddenly turns white? Is that scene terrible because of that? That is an objective mistake.
I like this notion you have. In order for people's view to be valid it has to get through me first. Interesting why is that let me ask? It wouldn't matter what I told you on why I personally think the film is good your mind is made up. So why should I go through the trouble?
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
"I asked are we discussing the choreography or how Ridley performed the choreography? Two different things. Do you know the choreography inside and out? I directly addressed this and you side stepped it"
we are discussing how she performed it and you know it. And you are now lying, i did not side step I answered directly, I do not know the choreography but the stunt performers did, and you see they have to constantly adjust themselves the entire scene because she is off queue. I suppose it could be the stunt performers that are off queue but that is more doubtful since they are the professionals at that particular topic.
Saying it is "garbage" is hyperbole I will admit, I was using it as a short hand to describe the film and characters' writing as weak and too much of a rehash of the original. All spectacle no substance.
"In order for people's view to be valid it has to get through me first. Interesting why is that let me ask?"
You are moving the goal posts here, first the claim was I am only use to people agreeing with me, when I pointed out most do not now you claim that I have to approve an opinion for me to take it as valid; so which is it?
The film is badly written and Rey is the worse written of all the others; this is objective and if people claim not they are wrong. The other aspects of the film can be argued subjectively and if people like it in-spite of the bad writing that is fine; but you seem to be like the others that defend the bad writing without much merit based arguments and constant devolving into fallacies and claims of universal subjectivity.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Um no I do not. I was addressing what we were discussing. If you do not know the choreography than how do you know she is doing it wrong and they are not the ones doing it wrong? Stunt men are human and can make mistakes as well. Learn the in and outs of the choreography, then you have stronger legs to stand on.
Um I did no such thing. The majority of people disagree with you about TFA being the worst Star Wars film. That is an objective fact. TFA beats out every prequel on Rottentomatoes, metacritic as well as imdb. You only think someone's view is valid as long as it gets your stamp of approval. An entitled attitude. It does not work that way.
No Rey being the worst written character of everyone is subjective. You seem to not understand the difference between subjective and objective. Lets take sports as an example. I can tell you exactly how many points Michael Jordan has scored in his career. That is an objective fact because there is no disputing it. You can agree or disagree all you want at the end of the day he still has the same amount of points recorded on the stat sheet. When you say a certain character is poorly written that is not objective. You claim Forrest Gump to be a poorly written character that is subjective. The reason being is because it can be disputed. Learn the difference between subjective and objective.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Are you being intentionally dense while at the same time cherry picking my arguments? That would suck because this could have been a worth while exchange.
First all it can be clearly seen that someone is off queue. Did you watch the breakdown or not. The certain aspects of timing were totally missed this is why the stunt men have to avoid hitting her. If the fight scene was choreographed for this then it is a garbage choreography because they have people pretending to fight intentionally missing each other. Again WTF are you credentials for knowing choreography better than me? Your pathetic appeal to authority is NOT an argument. Someone in the scene is off queue, this can be seen. It is either the actor or the stunt man. I find it more likely it is the actor who is not the professional. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE to argue this point beside. 'you don't know choreography like I know'.
Audience Score for TLJ: 44% on RT, 70% google like rate and imdb 7.1 average. Attack of the clones: 66% on RT, 85% like on google and 6.6 on IMbd.
Besides just because something is popular on release does NOT mean it was a good film. The prequels sucked and the sequels have been just as bad if not worse; people saw this clearly with last jedi but fell for the empty spectacle of Force Awaken. If you ever took any time to read the reviews you would see a trend of people admitting the bad writing but still rating the film a 9 or 10. Explain that to me.
See here we go again. You are the one that doesn't understand objective and subjective. We can OBJECTIVELY say Michael Jordan is one of the greatest of all time and even stack him up against Wilt Chamberlain and kareem abdul jabbar. The final say on which of those 3 might be left up to SUBJECTIVITY but what you can't do is try to claim that someone like Cherokee Parks can be judged as a great NBA player just because someone likes him
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
See that is my whole point. You do not even know if the choreography is bad. You never know it could be bad choreography. Okay I will stand corrected shouldn't have made that claim. I believe I do but much like how you claimed TFA to be garbage and retracted that statement I will do the same. Again I am asking if the scene is bad because of a hiccup does that mean the hospital scene in Terminator 2 is bad? Answer that question.
Not talking about Last Jedi. Remember we are factoring in critics as well not just users. When factoring in critics Last Jedi is actually well received.
You are right being popular on release does not make it a good film necessarily. The Transformers films were popular on release but the reception showcased they were not good movies according to critics and users. They just were popular and made tons of cash. Again admitting to bad writing and saying writing is not the strength of the film are two different things.
We can say Michael Jordan is one of the greats objectively. You said yourself you do not think Shawshank or Forrest Gump in your book should not be considered one of the greatest films ever. Guess what it makes no difference what you think about that the fact is it\both of those are considered some of the greatest films ever. Just like how someone disliking Michael Jordan would not take away his place among the NBA greats. TFA, as well as Rogue One are better received than the prequels are. That is an objective fact. With Rogue One there is no excuse of being blinded by a mystery box, not having nostalgia etc.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
i said garbage is hyperbole, i didn't retract it. It is garbage in my opinion, but I support my opinion with objective analysis. For the fight scene it is not one hiccup it is the entire thing. did you watch the breakdown or not. I will admit I do not know if the actor/stunt guys were following the choreography and it was designed that poorly or if someone performed it poorly; either way someone f'ed it up. I do not even know what T2 hospital scene you mean. But this is another deflection.
1. The drop off of audience approval in LJ can be directly attributed to the open ended and directionless writing of TFA. 2. Critic scores do not mean as much today because before critics did not care as much about losing first viewing writes.
Explain to me the difference to me between 'the writing was weak' and 'the writing was bad'. I do not see a difference.
here is what I will say about FG and Shaw, they are objectively good films that i think are overrated for 1 major issue each; for FG it is the character Forrest is basically a cartoon character taking place next to real history. I find the manipulative nature of this insulting to the intellect but most are not bothered by it. Fair enough. for Shaw I think it is just an unremarkable film that drags and is boring. So I think it is about the same as Dances with Wolves a good movie that I did not like.
Being better received has nothing to do with the quality of the writing of the plot or characters. Since you say the OT is overrated than you agree with this claim. The problem with TFA that I take is that the writing was so bad that it made the rest of the spectacle completely unwatchable. if people can ignore the bad writing and just enjoy the ride, good for them. But it does not change the fact that the writing was bad. and the proof of the bad writing is the failure of the 2nd act.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
I did watch the breakdown but that does not prove what I am asking you for. You admit you do not know if the choreography was deigned poorly or if it was poorly followed. Which feeds into my point I was originally talking about. In order to further weigh in on the scene you need to know the choreography inside and out. I linked you to the mistake in terminator 2 and you ignored it. Here you go again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQUxZe20z8 time starts at 1:56. The black guy he tosses into the window turns from black to white. That is an objective mistake does it make the scene bad?
Yeah yeah we are going to discredit critics because it does not suit your agenda. Sorry bottom line they factor in when measuring how well a film is received. Do not like it too bad.
Weak writing even exists in solid films. Temple of Doom created a continuity issue for Raiders. I call that weak writing and lack of foresight not flat out bad writing. Bad writing to me is stuff like the Room. Semantics sure but that is how I see it.
Again all fine and dandy. I am showing you regardless if you like Forrest Gump or Shawshank it does not take away their spot in film history. I know it hurts but that is the objective truth.
Sure it does. I think the OT is overrated that does not mean I think it is bad overall. TFA had Finn which honestly was new angle no one gives the film credit for. I disagree on it being badly written. I would not call the writing exceptional or inspired but flat out bad I do not agree with. I feel it plays it a bit too safe. It does not take enough risks.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
Okay this is getting tiresome. You lied again; I went through the chat history you never provided a link. but I watched it this time; what the fuck does a stunt double not looking like the actor have to do with choreography? Jesus christ dude. WTF are you talking about?
Fuck you about my agenda to, go do some research over the last 10 years critics have been far more hesitant to give bad review to the big film producers such as disney; unless they get an 'okay' from them in the form of released information on sales or marketing. This is why audience score for Last jedi is at 44% while critic score is at 90%. Solo the critics got the okay with how Disney released information that they were anticipating a lose due to saturation of the market. So the critical review of Solo is probably closer to authentic.
You think Finn is a good written character? Tell me this then why does he behave not at all like a child soldier and have no problem killing his former comrades after seeing one die caused him to freak out completely? And you are not allowed to bring up supplementary material to back up you arguments, it has to come form the film
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
I am providing a goof in a scene in a classic film. I noticed this when I saw the scene years ago. I am asking if that makes the scene bad. Yes or no answer the question.
Then explain why the live action remakes of Lion King, Aladdin, and Dumbo all received poor reviews. Did Disney forget to mail off the check to the critics?
So because someone was raised a certain way that means they can not behave differently? Interesting. He saw what they did to a village. The whole thing traumatized him. The death of a former comrade and then seeing the village be destroyed kind of causes I don't know some trauma. Tell me this how is a child solider supposed to behave? Since you are the expert. He kills them because he develops a friendship with the side he felt was right. Obviously a change of heart occurred and his eyes got open to how bad the first order was. I mean you ought to understand a swift change right. I mean at the beginning of Episode 3 Revenge of the sith Anakin goes from being good to by the end killing children without issue. Since according to you those are such more high brow and deeply written films.
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
I was not arguing the scene was bad because of continuity issues, I was arguing that the choreography or the actor's ability to do the choreography was bad. And this was the entire fight scene. This is not at all comparable to a 2 second continuity error in which the stunt performer doesn't look like the actor. Is it good that it is there, no; does it ruin the scene of course not. But not even comparable.
Because remakes are going to make money regardless so it doesn't matter if the critics give it bad reviews. Want proof of this difference; look at the critical rating of Toy Story 4, it is better rated by both critics and audiences then any of the former films; do you think Toy Story 4 is better than say Toy Story 3? Why would the critics rate it so high?
I have been to countries and have actually seen child soldiers with my own eyes in Libya, Sudan, and Afghanistan. So yes I claim legitimate expertise in this area. But even just volunteer adult soldiers have a domineer about them. Finn exhibits none of the trait you would expect out of a storm trooper. once he is out of the uniform it seemingly becomes irrelevant to his character other than some 'useful' knowledge. Finn I think is one of the better character of the series but he could have been so much better if the potential of a storm trooper rebelling idea wasn't somewhat reduced so he could be a comedy side kick and a total buffoon.
reply
share
moviefanatic505 (6028)
5 years ago
Okay thank you finally got an answer to that. As I said though you need to study the choreography. Am I saying it will make the scene work better for you no, but it will make you have stronger legs to stand on. Let me ask another question though to see if this scene is more comparable. Do you think this scene is well done fighting? Not the movie just choreography of the fighting in this scene itself ok. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWnxs9ZBc0M
And you think Star Wars is not going to make money no matter what? The Transformers series has been terribly received with the exception of Bumblebee, guess what it did not stop it from being a giant cash cow. Studios only care if the movie makes money, they do not care if it gets critical acclaim as long as it lines their pockets.
I personally find Toy Story one and 2 to be the best of the franchise.
See but this is where I just do not get how you get hung up. So no person can be different than the way they were brought up?
reply
share
arflexit (2376)
5 years ago
This chat is getting messy, we gotta call it quiets on this one.
I am not getting into a breakdown of the choreography of DKR, but compared to TLJ the any mistakes were not nearly as obvious and glaring, when you can clearly see people are off queue and having to move to avoid hitting each for real it is self evident that the choreography or ability to follow the choreography was bad, no need to 'research' it to find out who was guilty unless blame needed to be caste. So the claim that studying choreography is useless to this chat anyway. and again you are trying to rely on your yet unproven claim of superior knowledge of fight choreography. I do not think you actually have any so stop trying to waste your time with useless appeals to authority that you can't authenticate.
reply
share