I agree with this

Meh....

She had some valid points and was patently wrong on others. I agree with MonkeyZero - she is missing that this is 1/3 of a trilogy. The story is just beginning.
 
Denverdave said:
Meh....

She had some valid points and was patently wrong on others. I agree with MonkeyZero - she is missing that this is 1/3 of a trilogy. The story is just beginning.
Click to expand...
Yes but in the film in question, deep relationships are formed in a matter of seconds. That's what she's talking about. Therefore it has no weight.

I enjoyed the movie overall but it was pretty shallow and forgettable. Something felt wrong to me and it took me a while to realize they purposely drew Finn as a funny, teddy bear, Magical Negro, without a dick just so he would keep his hands off the attractive white woman. Oh, and he's a helper.

In any other classic storyline in the history of storylines, Fiin and Rey would have some kind of quasi-push and pull romantic relationship. That actor was cast because he's non threatening, and you wouldn't imagine him banging Rey doggy-style on the Death Star. It's a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top I tell you!
 
James Franciscus said:
Yes but in the film in question, deep relationships are formed in a matter of seconds. That's what she's talking about. Therefore it has no weight.

I enjoyed the movie overall but it was pretty shallow and forgettable. Something felt wrong to me and it took me a while to realize they purposely drew Finn as a funny, teddy bear, Magical Negro, without a dick just so he would keep his hands off the attractive white woman. Oh, and he's a helper.

In any other classic storyline in the history of storylines, Fiin and Rey would have some kind of quasi-push and pull romantic relationship. That actor was cast because he's non threatening, and you wouldn't imagine him banging Rey doggy-style on the Death Star. It's a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top I tell you!
Click to expand...

Or, because the film is part of a longer space opera (as was already pointed out in a prior post), the relationship you (and others) desire will pan out.

Perhaps due to the action that they wished to pack into the movie they decided to forego the Twilight-ish, drawn out, romantic angst that would turn off many fans (who wants to watch a girl or guy wonder if the other loves them while they are involved in dodging pew-pews from stormtroopers, or the light sabre of the de-riguer "Man In Black")?

Of course we could take the attitude that our popular culture should not be there for entertainment or even forgetting our miserable lives for a few hours but a constant reminder of why our lives may be miserable. I know that is how I wish to be entertained: Constant reminders of my white, male, middle class privilege.

Lastly: You want classic storyline that leads to romance, but what if that is not the intent? Do you need romance to make a good movie? Maybe Abrams wished to think outside the box, break the inane paradigms, etc... and just leave the romance out of what could be merely a good "Pew-Pew" movie.

We don't always have to conform to what the majority wants, do we? What if the (moral?) majority is wrong?
 
2112 said:
Or, because the film is part of a longer space opera (as was already pointed out in a prior post), the relationship you (and others) desire will pan out.

Perhaps due to the action that they wished to pack into the movie they decided to forego the Twilight-ish, drawn out, romantic angst that would turn off many fans (who wants to watch a girl or guy wonder if the other loves them while they are involved in dodging pew-pews from stormtroopers, or the light sabre of the de-riguer "Man In Black")?

Of course we could take the attitude that our popular culture should not be there for entertainment or even forgetting our miserable lives for a few hours but a constant reminder of why our lives may be miserable. I know that is how I wish to be entertained: Constant reminders of my white, male, middle class privilege.

Lastly: You want classic storyline that leads to romance, but what if that is not the intent? Do you need romance to make a good movie? Maybe Abrams wished to think outside the box, break the inane paradigms, etc... and just leave the romance out of what could be merely a good "Pew-Pew" movie.

We don't always have to conform to what the majority wants, do we? What if the (moral?) majority is wrong?
Click to expand...
Not every thing has to be Twilight. I meant like Han Solo and Lea's relationship in the first film. There was sexual tension. I'd take any version of a hetero relationship that didn't involve a brotherly kiss on the forehead.
 
2112 said:
Or, because the film is part of a longer space opera (as was already pointed out in a prior post), the relationship you (and others) desire will pan out.

Perhaps due to the action that they wished to pack into the movie they decided to forego the Twilight-ish, drawn out, romantic angst that would turn off many fans (who wants to watch a girl or guy wonder if the other loves them while they are involved in dodging pew-pews from stormtroopers, or the light sabre of the de-riguer "Man In Black")?

Of course we could take the attitude that our popular culture should not be there for entertainment or even forgetting our miserable lives for a few hours but a constant reminder of why our lives may be miserable. I know that is how I wish to be entertained: Constant reminders of my white, male, middle class privilege.

Lastly: You want classic storyline that leads to romance, but what if that is not the intent? Do you need romance to make a good movie? Maybe Abrams wished to think outside the box, break the inane paradigms, etc... and just leave the romance out of what could be merely a good "Pew-Pew" movie.

We don't always have to conform to what the majority wants, do we? What if the (moral?) majority is wrong?
Click to expand...

Abrams is a creature of television and studio filmmaking. He lives for the tropes and for giving the people what they want. He's not known for making prickly entertainments that subvert expectations.

TFA was hardly a harangue about white male privilege, and changing things up by highlighting the Rey/Finn romantic tension would hardly change the film so that conventional white dudes would need trigger warnings. (Although I think the Finn/Poe chemistry is a lot more sexually charged and could be a welcome relationship twist in blockbuster storytelling.)

Using "no, I'll tell you the important stuff in the next movie" as an excuse is lousy storytelling. I should be able to enjoy/believe the characterization within the film without relying on outside beyond the 4th wall fanboi knowledge that the details are scheduled for release in 2017.
 
I've read some fan theories that Finn and Poe are gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but those two showed a lot more affection for each other than Finn and Rey.
 
James Franciscus said:
Not every thing has to be Twilight. I meant like Han Solo and Lea's relationship in the first film. There was sexual tension. I'd take any version of a hetero relationship that didn't involve a brotherly kiss on the forehead.
Click to expand...
It seems you are asking for romance in this movie (and insisting that it be an "acceptable" romance) for it to be good.

Why does there need to be romance in the movie (acceptable or not-acceptable) for it to be a good movie, or even a bad movie?

When the Imperial stormtroopers are chasing our heroes all over the known galaxy in an attempt to lay the wood on them, romance is the last thing I care about. Do we need two people going gooey over each other, distracting each other from the task, to make a movie good?

Why attempt to make a social statement about a movie when one should not exist in the first place? If you are judging how well you like a movie by how it meets your societal expectations of how things should be, then why not watch movies that would seem to cater to those expectations, rather than watch a sci-fi movie and complain about the lack of meeting said expectations?

It is a freakin' space-based shoot-em up that is one-third complete.

Did you have a problem with the movie "The Martian" because there was no romantic interest between Damon's character and another person? Was the small romance seen near the end of the movie unacceptable because it was merely portrayed as man-woman and not a lesbian romance between the two woman, or a gay romance between two of the men?
 
Peen Simmons said:
Abrams is a creature of television and studio filmmaking. He lives for the tropes and for giving the people what they want. He's not known for making prickly entertainments that subvert expectations.

TFA was hardly a harangue about white male privilege, and changing things up by highlighting the Rey/Finn romantic tension would hardly change the film so that conventional white dudes would need trigger warnings. (Although I think the Finn/Poe chemistry is a lot more sexually charged and could be a welcome relationship twist in blockbuster storytelling.)

Using "no, I'll tell you the important stuff in the next movie" as an excuse is lousy storytelling. I should be able to enjoy/believe the characterization within the film without relying on outside beyond the 4th wall fanboi knowledge that the details are scheduled for release in 2017.
Click to expand...

So what do the people want? Do they want a romance? Between whom? Would a romance between Rey and Poe be socially unacceptable in this day and age because it would be between two Caucasians?

No, the TFA was not a harangue about white male privilege but if one can harangue about the lack of following the "mores" of our society these days in a freakin sci-fi movie then I can use White Male Privilege as an example of just how ridiculous it is to expect a movie, any movie, to reflect what a portion of society wants to have in a movie.

As a matter of fact it is amazing that anyone would be so strict in their views that they would judge a movie for not reflecting what they feel it should reflect.

Lighten up all of you, it is a freakin' sci-fi movie about baddies trying to kill the good guys. Not a romance.
 
2112 said:
It seems you are asking for romance in this movie (and insisting that it be an "acceptable" romance) for it to be good.

Why does there need to be romance in the movie (acceptable or not-acceptable) for it to be a good movie, or even a bad movie?

When the Imperial stormtroopers are chasing our heroes all over the known galaxy in an attempt to lay the wood on them, romance is the last thing I care about. Do we need two people going gooey over each other, distracting each other from the task, to make a movie good?

Why attempt to make a social statement about a movie when one should not exist in the first place? If you are judging how well you like a movie by how it meets your societal expectations of how things should be, then why not watch movies that would seem to cater to those expectations, rather than watch a sci-fi movie and complain about the lack of meeting said expectations?

It is a freakin' space-based shoot-em up that is one-third complete.

Did you have a problem with the movie "The Martian" because there was no romantic interest between Damon's character and another person? Was the small romance seen near the end of the movie unacceptable because it was merely portrayed as man-woman and not a lesbian romance between the two woman, or a gay romance between two of the men?
Click to expand...

Well, one of the perils of genre entertainment is audience expectations. Star Wars is for the most part a romance (not like your mom's paperbacks but like King Arthur). And daring do and tales of woo go together hand in glove in romances. If you take away one part of that, people get bored and unsatisfied. Because they know how these things work. It would be like if a tragedy ended with everyone shrugging and going out for milkshakes.

The SW prequels were terrible, in part, because they failed to deliver on the promise of romantic story forms. They were weirdly paced genre mashups with no consistent tone or approach.

Think about Sherlock Holmes. You know how a Sherlock Holmes story works. The characterizations have been built over time, sure, but Holmes and Watson never behave randomly or unlike themselves. And each story is a contained understandable thing. When you introduce new characters, you have to make us understand how their bonds were formed so that in the further adventures, we can build on that knowledge for greater appreciation.
 
2112 said:
It seems you are asking for romance in this movie (and insisting that it be an "acceptable" romance) for it to be good.

Why does there need to be romance in the movie (acceptable or not-acceptable) for it to be a good movie, or even a bad movie?

When the Imperial stormtroopers are chasing our heroes all over the known galaxy in an attempt to lay the wood on them, romance is the last thing I care about. Do we need two people going gooey over each other, distracting each other from the task, to make a movie good?

Why attempt to make a social statement about a movie when one should not exist in the first place? If you are judging how well you like a movie by how it meets your societal expectations of how things should be, then why not watch movies that would seem to cater to those expectations, rather than watch a sci-fi movie and complain about the lack of meeting said expectations?

It is a freakin' space-based shoot-em up that is one-third complete.

Did you have a problem with the movie "The Martian" because there was no romantic interest between Damon's character and another person? Was the small romance seen near the end of the movie unacceptable because it was merely portrayed as man-woman and not a lesbian romance between the two woman, or a gay romance between two of the men?
Click to expand...
You're confusing cookie cutter Rom Com romance and sexual tension. Its normal stuff between a man and a woman who work closely together. Even if not acted upon its always there, and definitely needs to be there to make for a compelling film.

It ads a sense of realism and humanity to a genre otherwise already mired in a legacy of Chucky Cheese bait for kids with Ewoks and other cartoonish characters that take you out of the reality that world.

I hate that shit and it's why I prefer my sci-fi dark ala Blade Runner, Aliens, and Planet of The Apes. There's sexuality and humanity in all these films. Even while trapped in a cage, Taylor still wants to bang Nova. Why? Because he a man with a dick!

I believe the writers made a choice to make Finn a "Black Teddy Bear" (Yeah, it's a thing) for a reason, instead of making him a real person. And I really don't care about waiting two years to find out why. I know why.
 
James Franciscus said:
You're confusing cookie cutter Rom Com romance and sexual tension. Its normal stuff between a man and a woman who work closely together. Even if not acted upon its always there, and definitely needs to be there to make for a compelling film.

It ads a sense of realism and humanity to a genre otherwise already mired in a legacy of Chucky Cheese bait for kids with Ewoks and other cartoonish characters that take you out of the reality that world.

I hate that shit and it's why I prefer my sci-fi dark ala Blade Runner, Aliens, and Planet of The Apes. There's sexuality and humanity in all these films. Even while trapped in a cage, Taylor still wants to bang Nova. Why? Because he a man with a dick!

I believe the writers made a choice to make Finn a "Black Teddy Bear" (Yeah, it's a thing) for a reason, instead of making him a real person. And I really don't care about waiting two years to find out why. I know why.
Click to expand...

Not every guy feels the need to fuck every female he comes in contact with.
 
Peen Simmons said:
Well, one of the perils of genre entertainment is audience expectations. Star Wars is for the most part a romance (not like your mom's paperbacks but like King Arthur). And daring do and tales of woo go together hand in glove in romances. If you take away one part of that, people get bored and unsatisfied. Because they know how these things work. It would be like if a tragedy ended with everyone shrugging and going out for milkshakes.

The SW prequels were terrible, in part, because they failed to deliver on the promise of romantic story forms. They were weirdly paced genre mashups with no consistent tone or approach.

Think about Sherlock Holmes. You know how a Sherlock Holmes story works. The characterizations have been built over time, sure, but Holmes and Watson never behave randomly or unlike themselves. And each story is a contained understandable thing. When you introduce new characters, you have to make us understand how their bonds were formed so that in the further adventures, we can build on that knowledge for greater appreciation.
Click to expand...
I agree. We're talking about successful story telling, consistently of tone, and 3 dimensional characters.

But if racist Star Wars fans shit a brick just for seeing a black face in the trailers, imagine what would have happened if Finn ended up with Rey?
 
Denverdave said:
Meh....

She had some valid points and was patently wrong on others. I agree with MonkeyZero - she is missing that this is 1/3 of a trilogy. The story is just beginning.
Click to expand...

One third of a triple triology, the iconic first trio that she doesn't like, the controversial pre-quels that she completely dismisses. This type of review is better for a new trilogy, one that doesn't have the history and legend for which she has no appreciation.

Here's my thing, I think it was better version of a New Hope. I don't expect a single person to agree with me AND I know that part of that opinion is hugely biased by having been a lifelong fan of series who always saw the shortcomings of the original trilogy. My dad's also right that they mythos of the Jedi and the force is underplayed, despite being practiced throughout the film. As for people complaining about the lack of reaction and outrage over the destruction of five planets...people that are in the midst of war do not spend a lot of time dwelling on the immediate past, current, or imminent deaths. War is a long game and the plan is mitigate loses while WINNING. For one side that might mean countless deaths for the other it might mean sacrifice. In the case of the latest rebels they once again find themselves with limited numbers and resources, but the spirit to fight despite the odds and the soul-crushing destruction of five civilizations.

But how long should they have spent mourning the losses. Further, we need to focus...Han is dead! Fuck all those other fictional non-people! How would a presumed mourning period helped the flow of the movie. It became a motivating factor to hurry the fuck up and try to destroy that new weapon that makes the Death Star look like a gnat.

It's a fun movie made to refocus the franchise and win back the fans Lucas lost. It succeeds on that level, until everyone can voice their opinions and have their joy minimized by reading all these opinions. Thanks interwebz!
 
James Franciscus said:
I've read some fan theories that Finn and Poe are gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but those two showed a lot more affection for each other than Finn and Rey.
Click to expand...

Rey showed romantic attraction to no one in the film. She showed a begrudging respect to several people, but given what happened to her (being dumped on some god forsaken planet alone) she is not the type to fall for anyone quickly. Distrust and self reliance have kept her alive to this point in her life. She eventually showed a trust in her fellow travelers and a genuine affection for Finn - but given her background sexual tension would be out of character this early. The script writers got that part exactly correct.
 
Denverdave said:
Rey showed romantic attraction to no one in the film. She showed a begrudging respect to several people, but given what happened to her (being dumped on some god forsaken planet alone) she is not the type to fall for anyone quickly. Distrust and self reliance have kept her alive to this point in her life. She eventually showed a trust in her fellow travelers and a genuine affection for Finn - but given her background sexual tension would be out of character this early. The script writers got that part exactly correct.
Click to expand...

While I tend to agree with you, what I think Jimmy is trying to say is that no white woman could resist a strong black man set on booty domination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top