"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
01/08/2016 at 18:36 • Filed to: None
2
8|
"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
01/08/2016 at 18:36 • Filed to: None | 2
| 8 |
I read the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and several Oppo reviews and the consensus I seem to be getting is it’s really good because it’s a carbon copy of the first movie and it’s really good because it has special effects that rox mai sox but the plot is lame because it’s a carbon copy of the first movie and to a lesser degree it’s lame because it’s a carbon copy of the first movie . Since most of the reviews are just a paragraph long it’s really hard to tell. Or maybe I’m just clouded by the Star Wars cynic in me.
UPDATE: It seems like the consensus seems to be it’s a lot like Abrams’ Star Trek movies, which I suppose shouldn’t be surprising (I did like those movies - yes even Into Darkness).
BorkBorkBjork
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 18:39 |
|
It’s a good Star Wars movie, because of course it’s a good Star Wars movie, its basically a “Greatest Hits” of the original Trilogy. Other than that, the storytelling is a bit of a mess.
Definitely a “meh”, but I’ll still watch the next one...
Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 18:45 |
|
I went in expecting greatness, the first half was a 10/10 for me then it kinda went down hill to a 6/10 cliche of the first movie. Mad Max was a start to finish 10/10 by comparison.
lone_liberal
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 18:52 |
|
It was good. It wasn’t some mind shatteringly awesome work of pure genius, but it was good. That io9 piece was nerds dissecting nerd things for pleasure. It’s what we do.
SVTyler
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 18:53 |
|
It’s OK for the first film in the trilogy, but as io9 mentioned TFA is less of an homage to the first film and more of a rip-off, which kinda makes you wonder how good of a movie they could’ve made if the screenwriters had written a more original plot. I’ll go see the other movies, but it was about a 6.5/10 for me at least.
While we’re on the subject, another thing that really bothered me about TFA (which I don’t really see anyone mentioning) is how moments that were supposed to be dramatic and impactful (meeting Kylo Ren for the first time, Kylo’s fit of rage after *spoiler redacted*) were completely ruined by forcing unexpected bits of humor into the scene. Really killed the vibe for what could’ve been really good scenes and kind of made the whole film seem a bit campy instead of serious.
Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 18:54 |
|
What they said.
It shot itself itself in the foot by trying too hard to keep everyone happy. Pity, because there was a story in there trying to get out, and the junior leads could have carried it.
Still some great space opera set pieces though, and well worth seeing as a big dumb movie.
Probably 3rd best of the series so far, for me.
RallyWrench
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 19:58 |
|
I’m a halfhearted Star Wars dork, but didn’t get to see any of the originals in theaters. This one had that special vibe, and none of the prequels did. I liked it, copycat parts or not. It was fun. And I also liked Abrams’ Star Treks, despite having grown up on the original and TNG.
user314
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 20:17 |
|
I give it two thumbs up.
Textured Soy Protein
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
01/08/2016 at 22:10 |
|
I’m more of a Star Trek fan than Star Wars but I’ve seen all the Star Wars movies plenty too. Well, not the prequels, because they don’t merit repeat viewing.
The biggest difference between JJ Trek and TFA is that JJ Trek is a total re-imagining of Star Trek, where TFA is a direct sequel to Return of the Jedi. Sure, technically Old Spock in JJ Trek is the same Old Spock from the original series who also showed up in TNG, who traveled back in time from some point in the future after TNG. JJ Trek is like “peak JJ” in terms of style, whereas TFA is much more deliberately trying to look like Star Wars.
Personally, while I enjoy JJ Trek 1, even though it’s more slam-bang quick paced action than Star Trek needs to be, I really don’t like JJ Trek 2: Crappier Version of Khan. They went through all that trouble in JJ Trek 1 to be like “THIS IS A WHOLE NEW TIMELINE WITH NEW STUFF” and then the very next movie, they brought back the most iconic villain from the original movies, except because it’s a new timeline, that bad guy is totally robbed of all the context he has in Wrath of Khan. That whole PR campaign of “CUMBERBATCH IS SO TOTALLY NOT KHAN YOU GUYS” and then of course he’s fucking Khan was just stupid. When he reveals to Kirk that he’s Khan, Kirk just looks at him like “oh so that’s your real name, OK, got it” because unlike Wrath of Khan where Kirk and Khan have history , the fact that “John Harrison” is actually named Khan changes absolutely nothing for JJ Kirk. He’s still just some mysterious strong dude!
Also, JJ Trek plays fast and loose with the long-established ground rules of how stuff is supposed to work in Star Trek. Like there’s no warp factor numbers! Every Star Trek movie and show, they’re like “set a course for blah blah planet, Warp 7!” But in Into Dumbness when the Enterprise is warping away from the Vengeance, they’re like “you’re not safe, even at warp speed” as if warp speed is infinite speed, but then the Vengeance overtakes them, because it can go extra infinite speed. Within the rules of Star Trek, that makes no sense!
Anyway, TFA is far from perfect, but it’s much more faithful to its source material, which makes it much better than JJ Khan, even though generally speaking I’ll take Star Trek over Star Wars any day.