pacino wrote:You don't like it. That's fine. There is a value judgement assigned to your 'objective' description. You know this.

I'll give you fan-boy service, but:


Derivative: adj., (typically of an artist or work of art) imitative of the work of another person

TFA is the dictionary definition of derivative: therefore, it is not "subjective" to say so. Whether that bothers you or not, that is subjective.

mozartpc27 wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My gut tells me this movie will be better - a lot better - than TFA.

Weren't you a hater/not a fan of TFA? Isn't that a low bar for you?

Yes, and yes.

But I am also objectively correct: TFA is a derivative fanboy-service pastiche of the original trilogy, so my bar should be universal for everyone.

But not everyone evaluates movies as critically as you do. For example, the bar of enjoyment (which most laymen will use to compare how "good" a film is, i.e., if something is better or even a lot better) factors in much more if it's a "derivative fanboy-service pastiche," in fact that might be a boon to one's enjoyment due to nostalgia or for avoiding the mistakes of 1/2/3.

Star Wars itself is derivative. You are being inane.

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:You don't like it. That's fine. There is a value judgement assigned to your 'objective' description. You know this.

I'll give you fan-boy service, but:


Derivative: adj., (typically of an artist or work of art) imitative of the work of another person

TFA is the dictionary definition of derivative: therefore, it is not "subjective" to say so. Whether that bothers you or not, that is subjective.

Using it as a pejorative is what is subjective. It was the first film in a series not done by its legendary creator. Of course it was the textbook definition of derivative.

The bigger deal is that Rogue One looks extraordinary. I've been on the record for a year that I'm more excited for this film than I was for Ep 7... if possible that's even more true now.

pacino wrote:Star Wars itself is derivative. You are being inane.

In part, yes, but - as Woody will tell you - it is legitimate for a creative work to draw inspiration from and even directly lift ideas and concepts from other sources, so long as it "works" with them to create something new and original.

I should hasten to add here that I would never accuse the original Star Wars films, as much as I like them and think they are great movies, as Art with a capital "A." They are, and were meant to be, highly engaging and effective light family entertainment, and they are insanely good at it.

TFA takes the "borrowing" George Lucas to a whole other level. Lucas assembled inspiration from dozens of different sources to generate a single, new work that was not a direct copy of any one thing: there are elements of Japanese samurai mythology, Arthurian legend, Campbell's monomyth, that scene from Dam Breakers, Flash Gordon, etc. He's doing what artists do: assembling bits and pieces from divers and diverse sources to generate new work.

TFA is a copy of one thing, in service of re-launching a media empire for Disney. There isn't any creative destruction or assembly to be found anywhere in the film. That is just plain truth.

There's so much equivocation there I'm snot sure why I bothered. Have fun I guess.

hehe snot

i don't see how you'd think that trailer isn't just as derivative as TFA. They have like 8 different vehicles from the OT. Including a scene where they're attacking At-Ats that looks exactly like ESB. There's a droid saying "there's a 99.6% chance of failure!" I'm guessing the next line is "Never tell me the odds". And the Imperial March playing over the whole thing. And the plot is presumably going to be the good guys getting the Death Star plans and delivering them to the resistance...

It looks just like TFA where it's going to be half new stuff and half stuff from the OT.

bleh wrote:i don't see how you'd think that trailer isn't just as derivative as TFA. They have like 8 different vehicles from the OT. Including a scene where they're attacking At-Ats that looks exactly like ESB. There's a droid saying "there's a 99.6% chance of failure!" I'm guessing the next line is "Never tell me the odds". And the Imperial March playing over the whole thing. And the plot is presumably going to be the good guys getting the Death Star plans and delivering them to the resistance...

It looks just like TFA where it's going to be half new stuff and half stuff from the OT.

Um...

Yeah, nevermind.

Everything revealed in the trailer:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/everything-revea ... 1785207768

pacino wrote:There so much equivocation there

That's subjective.

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:That's literally subjective, not objective.

I am fully aware of why you would say this, but...

Not all evaluations of art are subjective. I teach literature. If someone turned TFA in as a paper, I'd write it up for plagiarism. It really isn't "subjective" that the plot of TFA follows a New Hope almost blow-for-blow, except where it throws a little of ESB & ROTJ in, nor is it subjective why: the filmmaker and his bosses were terrified - terrified - of making something that would be associated with the prequels. That's why part of their very clever publicity campaign for the film stressed over and over and over that they were using practical effects as much and wherever possible, etc.

These aren't subjective observations, but verifiable facts.

So, the conclusion - that the film is a derivative pastiche of its predecessors - isn't really "subjective" either. Whether one likes it or not, now that is subjective.

E
No one is arguing that TFA is not highly derivative of its predecessors to the point of almost being a remake. People will agree with you that this is more or less objectively true.

What is subjective whether that is "good" or "bad" and whether it sets a low bar for Rogue One or any other movie to be easily "better". That's entirely subjective despite your claims that it "should" be that way for everyone. That's what people are taking issue with.

Given both the critical praise and the general audience reaction, it's pretty clear that most people do not agree with you on your subjective evaluation of TFA.

Fuck yes.

man, that looks really good.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I fully expect it to be the best Star Wars movie since Empire. Gareth Edwards' direction style and pacing fits Star Wars much better than Abrams' style does, and it already shows through in the trailers.

BTW, if one of the people behind the construction of the Death Star was a reluctant prisoner, the exhaust port being a vulnerability makes a ton more sense. Maybe Jyn's dad was in a position that he could sneak a design flaw like that into it. Something small that no one would notice until too late but with catastrophic consequences.

Donald Glover has been cast as Young Lando in the upcoming Han Solo movie.

stevelxa476 wrote:Donald Glover has been cast as Young Lando in the upcoming Han Solo movie.

So awesome.

The guy they cast as Han Solo, Alden Ehrenreich, is too short to be Han Solo. But he was great in Hail Caesar. They'd probably be better off making a Lando movie with Han as a side character.