I N S T I T U T I O N A L
H U M I L I A T I O N
I still don't get the prequel hate. They had some cheese, but they were generally pretty ok
>Wah I have a different standard for this movie than any other Hollywood movie cause reasons
>Wah Why can't Tarkovsky direct Starwars!?!?
>Wah the Mary Sue and coincidences won't stand the test of time.
>Ps I don't know what Indiana Jones is.
Was is a derivative piece of schlock garbage? Yes, but so is anything else made for more than 5 million dollars.
Fuck off you fuckng contrarians,
Critics are typically better judges of a film's worth, yes. They watch enough to have a proper contextual understanding of that works place within its medium
>king of /tv/
Now, I know where all blackd and cuck memes come from.
Quit while you're ahead, buddy. You always struck me as a half-virgin pretentious jerk-off I could beat up blinded with a single arm free, but now you're bordering the autismo line.
Stop. Trust me when I say this comes from a place of love. Stop.
what kind of fucking retards rate film on a 1-10 scale
TFA was 2-2.5 stars.
It seems like RT scores are getting more and more bloated and meaningless. Why could this be? Are production houses wizening up to the formula and gaming the system better now that they know that people are looking to places like Metacritic and RT for absolute opinions?
kill yourself shill
TRIPFAG DISNEY CUMGUZZLERS ON SUDOKU WATCH
Not only that but knowing Disney's practices and the jewish way of doing things. Ask Tarantino, he spoke quite well of it on the Howard Stern show.
Critics reviews mean nothing when Disney can bully, lobby and intimidate everyone they want.
I wasn't arguing that a good RT score automatically indicates a good film, but it's still a much better indicator than fucking user reviews by hormonal fanboys
using multisyllabic words after the fact does not justify an appeal to authority. There is zero merit in the argument that "the critics like it, so it's good." You should've moved past that idea at 18-19 years old.
136 kilos. Soon it'll be more if I keep it up.
Why don't we skip the foreplay and you ask directly what size my dick is, bro? I won't judge you.
Fuck you, you pick and choose what mobies deserve what ratings, if you picked a movie you liked that had low user ratings you'd say it were pleb opinions and so on.
Its people needlessly devoted to proving how bad TFA is.
>Fuck you, you pick and choose what mobies deserve what ratings, if you picked a movie you liked that had low user ratings you'd say it were pleb opinions and so on.
Uh-huh. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. Pretending your opinion is objectively correct because some critics and the general public agree with it, however, is extreme idiocy achievable only by a disney shill.
When you read Ulysses and all of the Catholic philosophy references go over your head and you start reading explanatory notes online, do you trust the judgement of someone who's read thousands of books and has a doctorate in Irish literature, or the judgement of some random user on goodreads? Not to compare JJ to Joyce, but people whose job it is to judge a film often have more insightful critiques than either you or I do because it's their fucking job to
You are a bunch on contrarians though. Next door neighbour to the edgelord.
Like I said, what would have made you like It? If Tarkovsky directed it? Maybe Mallick could set up a few shots? Would you like it if Von Triar stopped by to fix the white balance?
The movie wasn't any worse than some shit movie like Jupiter Ascending, and you didn't fucking talk about how shitty that was for 3 weeks, Brandon.
It's Hollywood, not high art.
It should be clear from reading just about any review that a great deal of film "critics" do not, in fact, have doctorates in film theory or know particularly more about film than the average cinephile.
If I was lying I would've said 150 or more. You think 136kg is a lot? Oh wow, you really are a weakling, man.
OT was high art though.
It was a Zen Buddhist Space Opera which BTFO Judeo Christian belief of posession and attachment to anything.
Original Trilogy was AS (if not more) intelligent as it was fun. That was what made it special.
TFA is a cancerous clone derivative that JJ hastily jumbled together for the millennial (aka YOU) generations empty brain and tasteless palate.
And yet they still have a larger base of understanding than average joe. I've never read a single insightful user review of a film, while occasionally the New Yorker writes something that'll enhance my enjoyment of a particular movie by detailing something that went over my head
Looking to a few *legitimately erudite and esteemed* film critics to gain a deeper understanding is perfectly fine. But looking at aggregate scores of unwashed critic masses' opinion of a widely released blockbuster doesn't really tell us about the film's quality. It really just tells us about how wide the movie's appeal is, how much it is likely to please the typical, casual audience.
136 could be alot depending on your height and body shape, for a girl 136 is a fucking landwhale status despite height, age or physical condition. For a manlet is a lot if they are not very muscular and with a wide torso. For a normal guy is alot only if he's a fatso, for a tall guy it can be a lot only if he has weird body shape like a pear or a chicken.
>Only now at the end do they realize
First, I didn't even like the movie, and called it shit a hundred times.
Who gives a shit if the OT promoted Buddhist lessons And BTFO Judeo Christians teachings. if I wanted that I'd watch the newest episode of The Simpsons
I refuse to accept the idea that the OT is high art, cause of some Buddhist wankery.
I'm 1.85m tall. I stopped lifting for a while, that's why I want to be able to bench around 170 by November and why I'm not content with 136. The guy who coaches gave me a weird look when I told him that was my goal, but he'll help nonetheless.
The only thing related to cancer and clones in regards to Star Wars are the prequel films.
>Original Trilogy was as intelligent as it was fun
What? Those films are pretty straight forward. Certainly there's something to be said about the mysticism and sense of magic that permeates those films, but that atmosphere all gets thrown out in the prequel films anyway.
No one suggested that they were. I said that they're a better indicator than cheeto-dusted fanboys calling a competently made film the worst thing to ever happen to cinema
That cheeky cunt.
>170 kg by November
You should really tone it down with that kind of shit, you'll cripple yourself. This kind of thing takes years to develop, not a few months.
Either that or go on a cycle.
No one is saying the Prequels are gold.
Redpilled are saying instead this:
THAT TFA IS SO SHIT, IT IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THE SHIT THAT WAS AOTC or RoTS.
Imagine... the shit your father shits, and the bloody shit a recovering ebola patient in Sierra Leone shits.
Prequels are formet, TFA is the latter
Nice job cherrypicking user reviews to group all negative reviews under the "cheeto-dusted fanboys" label and deride their criticisms as a "worst thing to ever happen to cinema" strawman.
I'm sure I could cherrypick film critics and make them all look like idiots too. Hell, Ebert already did half the job for me.
Are we talking about the same prequels?
IMO they were terrible, original but terrible. TFA is a cliche soulless film, unoriginal, repetitive and predictable, however it was better than prequels in terms of FX, acting, dialogue, basically in everything.
No. You're wrong. I don't care, how red you think your pill is. You have no arguments to compliment your shit analogy.
You've made no case as to why you're right. And my theory, is that it's cause you're wrong.
It's a moot point that it's not hard to top the prequels on acting/dialogue/FX though, right? That's not what the fanbase wanted alone. We wanted a new Star Wars. This wasn't new at all.
If we suck disney's cock over this rehash fest they're only going to continue to rehash.
>THAT TFA IS SO SHIT, IT IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THE SHIT THAT WAS AOTC or RoTS
But it's not, and the people saying that sort of immediately invalidate any other opinions they might hold.
The idea that Starkiller Base bullshit with JJ planet destruction derivative porn was in the movie subtracts an irreversible 4 out of 10 from the get go.
I can see it dropping to 3/10 or 4/10 with all the coincidences and the Poe disappearance bullshit or Kanjiklub Star Trek scene or ridiculous Luke witholding etc. etc. etc.
The fact that TFA was allowed by Disney executives to be finished with SUCH a shit script is proof that Disney is killing the art form of film.
Dreaming of galaxies far, far away in cinemas nearby. Crowds gasp in amazement swinging their hands along with lightsaber movements. Alas, the audience's awe is uninspired. Just like Kylo Ren walks and talks Darth Vader but is afraid he will not surpass his supremacy, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is afraid of treading treading uncharted territory fearing it will not live up to the expectations set by the original trilogy. As a consequence its universe provides nothing but an ersatz adventure.
The banality of the blockbuster serves to suppress the audience's capacity for imagination of better worlds to come. Cool artifice replaces reality. As a spectacle the blockbuster reaches its apex when its whole is self-contained: nothing but images referring to other images of popular culture. In Star Wars: The Force Awakens the universe created is a hodge-podge of familiar elements of its franchise's former glory days. For instance, Rey, who ostensibly is the new Luke Skywalker, originates from a desert planet abandoned by family just as Luke was. The Empire is now called the First Order, ruled by a Sith Lord identical to the Emperor and is still intent on building planet-destroying superweapons containing one fatal construction flaw. Han Solo returns the way the fans were hoping for: flying the Millenium Falcon with Chewie. Sadness of his death stems more from the disappearance of a fan-favorite character than from a tragic narrative.
Mired in self-references, the film ultimately signifies nothing. Its world is a poor substitute of man's innate sense of discovery. Where the literature of J.R.R. Tolkien fills the reader with a sense of wonder, Star Wars: The Force Awakens embodies the estrangement of man in his self-shaped artifice. The creatures wandering about come over as nonsensical and a mere sign of inter-space relations. More importantly, advanced technology is elevated to the fantastical, taking the place of man and nature as the source of all worship. Technique is shown to be a worthy ruler. Megalomaniac spaceships, each one bigger than the other, reveal our complex society's preoccupation with technological advancement. The Star Destroyer is its ultimate fetish.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is propaganda of seriousness (as defined by Johan Huizinga) in its most deceptive form. The viewer becomes trapped in its numerous winks to the Golden Oldies. He sublimates his innate alienation living in a technical world of artifice into an ersatz adventure. When he leaves the cinema, his critical faculties are weakened. Instead of being awakened, prompted to use his life force, he is lulled to sleep.
They do a good job of living up to the cliché. A tempered critique of the force awakens would be laudable. A 2/10 "worse than the prequels" is someone with a bone to pick. Probably an EU twat, or the sort of contrarian memer that despised Avatar and Titanic once they broke every box office record, or a disgruntled Trekker who's still upset that JJ made the first watchable film in the franchise in over a decade. TFA is tailor made to be hated, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the film itself
>Go to bed underage. Men will handle this.
Referring to these people being the same people claiming that the prequels were superior. Nobody is arguing that TFA is better than the original films.
These are valid criticisms, but you're ignoring things like good fundamentals.
It's still a movie with a coherent story (if stupid and recycled), good cinematography and effects, good acting (even if the characters are weak) and good pacing, all in all.
It's basically part of the group called the modern whedonesque capeshit movie.
I'll make it simple for a retrograde intelligence such as yourself:
If you've liked TFA more than any of the prequels, you are part of the problem. You are precisely the symbiotic parasite to JJ's opportunistic infection. You are no different than those who declared Phantom Menace "best star wars ever" 1 week after release.
Oh sorry.. .You were still shitting in your diapers back then no?
>Jurassic World was 5/10 and was much worse than TFA
The point it is it felt like a new movie and a sequel. TFA feels like a forced shoehorned thing and really like a rehashed movie.
>all the coincidences
Could be alright if they weren't so fucking big.
>Poe disappearance bullshit
What was the point of his character again?
Wait for him to be the new Jabba in episode IX.
>ridiculous Luke witholding
Ending such crappy movie with a jewish cliffhanger is absolutely unacceptable.
>that pointless freighter sequence
No, it's passable cinematography. You're right when you call it the "modern whedonesque capeshit movie"; since Whedon himself is infamous for his terrible cinematography.
Every OT fan attended the movie for Luke's mastery era.
Not fucking flat chested cunt, or manlet big ass nigger, or the 4 foot tall spic.
JJ then spits on your face by literally trolling the audience by placing Luke WITHOUT DIALOGUE in the final 8 seconds.
He should be raped, murdered-- only after bearing witness to the cannibalization of his children and wife, just to equal the BILLION strong disappointment he caused.
Of course everyone will watch a Star Wars film. Even if it is shit.
The problem is that it was derivative and will be forgotten in 5 years, beyond prequel levels.
I don't want to imply you're wrong, but I'm genuinely curious what you find "interesting" about him.
The only think I find "interesting" although it's more of a curiosity, is why he has such a hard-on for grandpa dearest. And that's not the movie establishing him as an interesting character, that's just the movie refusing to give us context.
If there's some other thing about him that makes him interesting, do tell me though, I'd like to start liking this new trilogy before the cynicism sets in permanently.
>ancestor-worshipping villain whose insecurity leads him put on the facade of a badass when he's actually just a frightened Vadet cosplsyer
>school shooter who's emotionally unstable
>kills his father to avoid being seduced by the light by his family like Vader was
He has a lot going on
Leave /tv/ JJ cumguzzler
JJ Abrams has directed 3 good movies, George Lucas has directed 1. George Lucas is the Ringo Starr of Hollywood, his shitty movie was saved in editing and suddenly he's rich and famous
All three of these are assumptions though.
Closest you have to it, is the emotionally unstable bit, but for all we know, his behaviour is just as likely a result of Snoke being a vengeful master, as him being emotionally unstable or aiming high. Nothing in the movie (to my memory) confirms his character to be either of these.
>"It looks like it, but that doesn't mean it's established as it's at most implied, along with other alternatives."
>"Dude, you can't even see what it looks like?"
>3 good movies
I'm not in any way defending Lucas, but wow, you are delusional. JJ has directed one good movie, at best. And that's only if you take the best parts of all of his films and try to cobble together a new film out of that.