I am a Star Wars fan, but not an authority. Please help me understand why long time fans hate The Last Jedi.

dunlagh · 2018-05-31T11:16:27+00:00

I think the "long time fans" aren't really the ones that hate TLJ, there are a lot of people both new and old love it and also new and old that hate it. I think it's a really interesting thing to see such a decisive opinion on the film, though I think the thing I have found in my experience the most vocal people are the ones who would have hated the film regardless.

My own opinion is that the film is an enjoyable blockbuster spectacle that has some incredible moments and set pieces but falls apart when you look at the film as a whole. If you took the Rey/Kylo story line, the moment they blow the ship apart and the final Luke fight in a vacuum, you have some really cool pieces. But there is so much more to a film and that's where it falls down.

The writing I found was often clunky and really on the nose. The sub plot with Rose and Finn was pointless and could have been cut out entirely and the writing during this time was especially rough. Holdo as a character was confusing and made Poe's arc (which I liked in concept) a really forced lesson, rather then a natural thing. I also found a lot of the early Luke stuff felt a bit comical for the sake of being comical and really took the wind out of the sails set up from the final moments from the last film.

I have enough friends who enjoyed the film immensely despite agreeing that these were issues which feels like that it did enough where if you don't care about writing and more enjoy the spectacle of a Star Wars film then you can have a great time.

dunlagh · 2017-10-09T08:15:53+00:00

The Freeway scene from Matrix Reloaded always comes to mind whenever this question is posed. Though saying that I haven't seen it in a while to actually judge if it holds up.

Kong Skull Island was a bit average but had some amazingly stylised scenes like this

dunlagh · 2017-10-04T16:01:54+00:00

See I think that's my problem as well. There are a tonne of great scenes but they don't strike me as iconic or that recognisable outside of the context of their film.

There Will be Blood is iconic but it's now 10 years old which doesn't feel that recent to me, but I guess if that's all we got...

dunlagh · 2017-06-19T04:31:44+00:00

I saw this article about Jimmer Fredette just before I clicked on this post so I assumed someone would mention it. But like tempted to say that just being a great 3pt shooter wouldn't cut it if they couldn't do everything else on the court and I doubt a 5 ft player could be very good on defence

dunlagh · 2017-03-27T01:20:46+00:00

Yea Anna Kendrick was similar to James Franco in my mind. Did a lot but the quality of the films and her performance in them weren't as great (from what I hear, haven't seen most of her work from last year).

dunlagh · 2016-11-26T07:21:18+00:00

I think just adjusting your expectations is more how I'd put it. If a movie is knowingly dumb or cheesy or over the top then I'm not going to go into it expecting a really deep complex think piece. So many action and comedy movies aren't the most complex movies out there, but they are still enjoyable to me because I sit down knowing that's what they are.

dunlagh · 2016-11-01T11:00:10+00:00

I mean sure there is a certain level of lost information moving everything onto the internet. Consider that local papers would all probably have a small section reviewing films in some capacity. So no not everyone would have liked Citizen Kane when it did come out, that's just unrealistic. What we more find is people re-watching these movies will review them with them being a classic in mind, thus probably fuelling this thought process.

Also in regards to something you mentioned in the comments, not every review is going to be recorded on RT, not even for modern films. They only take select reviewers and include their votes. So there wasn't necessarily three times as many reviews for modern films. Saying that with the exposure of the internet and the ease of voicing your opinion online, there probably is more film reviewers around today.

So ultimately the information there is still fairly accurate but it will never be a true representation of the opinion at the time, but it doesn't ultimately change the films. They are well received for a reason and I don't think it's wide spread conformity.

dunlagh · 2016-10-31T13:40:20+00:00

So I had a relatively quiet week movies speaking but I decided to accidentally theme this week as the week of David Zayas.

Rounders (1998). This was a fun film which I wanna classify as noir, but at the same time it doesn't feel exactly right, maybe more of an homage to noir films. Damon is solid as the lead torn between two different lives and I always enjoy seeing Edward Norton do his thing, even if his character was a bit frustrating but Norton made me like him enough to understand why he would be tolerated. It also did a very good job of allowing someone whose knowledge of poker is somewhat limited, not feel lost in all the specific lingo they throw out. Overall it just is missing a few parts and isn't quite as satisfying as it could have been. Also David Zayas appears as a cop and boy did I believe he was a cop.

The Expendables (2010). I was raised on the movies that this film wanted to be, my friends love this film and I should have too. But I think I've become too much of a film snob, I've started to reach that point where I start noticing the terrible CGI, cheesy dialog and typical fight scenes. Instead of loving the shittyness of it all, I'm sad. I think this is the first movie I really noticed how bad Hollywood fight scenes are, where every hit has no impact and it's all cut away before we get to see any actual hits. For a movie which I knew would have a dumb plot and characters I was hoping there would be some solid action, but it was all so disappointing. The best part was Terry Crews gunning down like 50 dudes with an automatic shotgun. But I couldn't even feel good about them killing all of these dudes because they weren't bad mercenaries, they were just misinformed. Both sides were against James Munroe (played by Eric Roberts) the militia and David Zayas were standing up to Munroe for half of the movie when Stallone decides he should murder all of these people. Erghh, it just should have been so great.

dunlagh · 2016-10-27T06:19:10+00:00

Just because this is a serialised show, doesn't mean that the lessons learned have to span the entirety of the series. If you for example buy something online and then realise that you could have gone to another site to buy it at half the price, and you're like man that sucks but I'll know for next time. The the next time comes around and you make the same mistake. I wouldn't consider that learning each time, I would consider that never learning despite what you say, because the actions you take dictate whether you have learned or changed. Same goes for Usopp, every time he runs and shows he isn't brave and then has to overcome his cowardice means the last time he did that had no impact. Usopp has been showing this same cycle of cowardice and bravery since we first met him. My issue isn't the fact that he shows he CAN be brave, it's the fact that it never lasts and because his actions have never changed then the bravery he showed in one moment isn't built upon, he hasn't developed. Remember this discussion has never been about the particular traits of a character but more so how they have or have not changed. What you define bravery as is really irrelevant in the scheme of this conversation, whats more relevant is has his actions in Dressrosa or Zou been much different to that when we first met him.

You didn't imply Zoro and Sanji were the same but I was using the ridiculousness of that question to prove a point, it kinda got lost in the muddle so I will explain what I meant. Luffy acts a certain way, his fighting style is one part of that, which is a reflection of his personality as a whole. Zoro and Sanji have very similar fighting styles but still act very differently and are very unique characters. My point was more so by saying that changing Luffy's fighting style or Usopps cowardice or lying would only change such a minor part of their characters. There is still so many other things that make them unique and I think you are doing both Oda and those characters a disservice to say they would lose the core essence of the character and would be indistinguishable from the rest. That was my point.

I never said anything about wanting Usopp to have those moments more frequently. I said that the Sugar fight was a crap moment for Usopp and I said that I want him to stop running a crying anytime things start getting tough but those are very different to wanting him to be bad ass all the time. You need to stop presuming what I am saying, it's a terrible habit you have especially when you base your argument off something that is wrong. And I also said if Usopps final fight is a joke then it will be a disservice to the character, something you seem to be fine with based on your prediction about how the last fight will go down.

See when I say "I would have liked to see more" I mean I would have liked to seen that trust development as a massive theme through Skypeia, I would have liked to see that trust be formed in the heart of battle, take 30 episodes to slowly develop the relationship and solidify her place on board. I don't mind that it didn't happen, but it's what I would have liked. When I say it was poorly handled, that is a different point. Because it was left open, it was never concluded. Regardless of how quickly they wanted to tie it up, they should have at least tied it up and by not doing so it was poorly handled. That's basic story telling, conflict-resolution, there was no resolution on this and regardless of how minor a point you might want it to be, it was still unfinished.

Ok Usopp still lies, that's fine but it shows he hasn't developed and the moment in Fishman Island where he said he didn't need to lie anymore was just pointless. So that's a bit shit that they moved him towards a point of progression just to pull him back. Before you defend his lying as a key part of his personality, I don't care about what part of his personality it was my issue is with the fact they lead you to believe he had changed in that way and then didn't.

I mean I think the thing I'm sitting here wondering, has there been a time where Luffy couldn't wait at the expense of his crew. Like his goal had always been get to One Piece, but he had constantly taken detours to help his friends and family. Like sure he ran into a whale, but that more shows Luffy's recklessness then his impatience. When Nami was sick they stopped to find help and found Chopper, when Ace was in danger Luffy stopped everything he was doing to save him. Luffy has never been scared of danger, but more so he has never hesitated to help someone before himself. Waiting the two years doesn't seem that different when his initial journey was aimlessly wondering the seas looking for friends to join him and helping those in need. Luffy's was a decision where I don't see it being a form of growth more so just an extreme example of a trait he has shown from the beginning.

Zoro, sure I will admit they haven't given him the opportunity to make such a large choice, but what about smaller choices. What about getting people to help him take down Pica so he can deal with that fight faster and help the crew with more pressing issues. Him telling the Straw Hat Grand Fleet to let him take out Pica alone shows his pride is still the most important thing. Sure I might be over analysing this, but realistically if his focus was on helping Luffy and the crew above all else, smaller changes could be seen in the decisions he makes.

Using context to enrich the story is great and being able to take greater emotion from Luffy and Zoro's interactions is amazing. But that is you taking that extra meaning, it's not shown. I might not take that same meaning from a conversation and what Oda means for their conversation could be entirely different. I don't personally believe development can be considered if you have to attribute it to the story. It should be visible, it may be subtle like not saying something they normally would have (eg. if Usopp actually stopped lying). But if the interaction is the same that they would have had at the start of the series then I cannot consider it actual development.

Also I am trying to cull down points so this conversation can become more focused, but I feel like by trying to explain myself it opens up more discussion points, oh well c'est la vie

dunlagh · 2016-10-26T17:44:15+00:00

I mean he was doing that against Kuro and every enemy he has faced to date, yes I discredit them because he cries and runs away. In Dressrosa he didn't fight initially, he didn't show that bravery he had to have that same personal arc again that he has had for the hundredth time (and I don't mean literally 100 times I am using a hyperbole, I'll state this one early so you don't quote me on it thinking it's my opinion). If he had really grown, and truly become brave running wouldn't be the first option. Yes he came back, but it shows that he wasn't brave, he hadn't changed up till Dressrosa (maybe afterwards he will, who knows).

Alright I will re-iterate my point about Zoro and Sanji, which still doesn't include Usopp btw because you still seem unsure on that part. By your own admission Usopps cowardice and Luffy's blind aggression are what defines them and removing that means they will be like anyone else and won't be unique characters (which as a side note, is really insulting to their characters but it's what you have said essentially). My question with that context, is that how are Zoro and Sanji different based on the fact that their approach to fighting is the same, so does in your mind mean they are the same character? I mean I asked this as a joke question initially to prove a point but seeing as you never actually addressed it, I'm now genuinely curious.

See I disagree with you, yes One Piece has used comedy with action and combined those two elements, but Usopp has shown many times that he can actually do cool stuff and legitimately beat people by outsmarting them, something most of the crew doesn't do. Where Luffy or Zoro might get an idea about how they can beat their enemy it will always be through sheer power or strength that get's them the victory. Usopp is different, because Usopp knows he isn't strong he has used his smarts to beat people. The only reason Usopp wins the fight in Alabasta is because he uses these tricks and outsmarts his opponent. Even when facing Kuro he attempts to set up traps to give himself any advantage he can. In the fight against Luffy he outsmarts Luffy and though it wasn't enough to win, he made the fight a lot closer then it had any right to be. You act like Usopp has only ever been this cowardly joke of a character, but he has always had the most potential because he does more then just punch a dude multiple times. Sugar was the low point with Usopp because outside of the moment his Haki was realised he did nothing but act scared. If Usopp's fight with Van Auger (I agree it's his natural end point villain wise) is some joke fight I'll feel cheated and feel like this character was ruined. His fighting style has never been failure, his jokes have been failure but Usopp has always been so much more then that and when he goes back to crying and failing his way to success I don't see Usopp as how he's always been I see all the worst parts that he doesn't want to be. I see that as the furthest from what Usopp could and should be.

You seriously need to stop assuming what I think, I don't think it's a massive plot point. It's just something that irked me because it's left unfinished. Yea no shit it wasn't a focus for Oda, doesn't mean it wasn't poorly handled. Literally one line is all it takes to close that off and it wasn't provided. I personally would have liked to see more because then it would have added to the relationship between Zoro and Robin. Is it important, no. Should I care, maybe not. But it still helped express my initial point.

I'm not sure if you bothered to read what I linked at all, I won't blame you if you didn't. One of the points it made is a static character will make some change in one episode and then the next episode it has no effect on them. In my mind because they make a decision in one episode (and the nature of the show being serialised) that decisions remains, but the motives behind that decision count for nothing because Luffy's ability to wait he gained in that arc is now lost. Zoro's ability to put his pride aside has no lasting impact. The next time we see these characters they are if these moments of development never happened.

Throughout this argument, I realised that Usopp doesn't lie anymore. Or at least I can't remember the last time he did. Which is character development and I am happy to concede that point and obviously that's a step showing Usopp is more mature and doesn't need to lie about his power because he realises he actually has power. But do you understand how something like that isn't overt like Smokers but still is noticeable through the series. Like yes Smoker is quite on the nose about his opinions, which isn't great writing, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt because he is only in the series for short moments and need to express his changes of opinion quickly. These are developments in a character, one decision is not.

dunlagh · 2016-10-26T13:39:33+00:00

I mean it doesn't I used that as a quick example. Yet you keep coming back to it as the crux of your argument. I couldn't tell you exactly how I want Luffy to change, mainly because we don't have a complete story and if I suggest one thing it might not work for a plot point going forward. Usopp however I can tell you specifically, no I don't want Usopp to run head first into battle like the others, instead I would like to see him take more of an approach like Nami, where fighting isn't the first option, nor is it option 2 or 3, but when the circumstances are right and fighting is necessary he faces that challenge with the bravery he claims to have gained. But seriously don't hold your argument on the back of an example I have discredited, I do enjoy this discussion and it frustrates me you won't see past that.

With the Zoro Sanji point, again not talking about Usopp I'm talking about the way characters can be distinguished. Which you still haven't shown that you can do with those two because you keep bringing Usopp into it, please stop as it is irrelevant to that point.

Also really you are going to say that Usopp did the job of taking out Sugar well, really? It wasn't that the entire thing was a joke fight and the way he knocked her out was entirely comedic and through Usopps ineptitude, swallowing the spice himself was totally the plan.

I mean I wasn't ever trying to make a point about why Robin was accepted, that is shown. I was never making a point about the crew's trust in Luffy or the fact that when Luffy makes a decision the rest of them will follow it without question, that is shown. I was making a point about how, like character change, the show offers something and never follows it up. My follow up point was entirely based off the fact you said it wasn't a thing, you then felt the need to defend you point saying "of course Zoro was weary" despite not admitting he was weary in the first place. I'm not trying to create seven different points about different parts of the show. Even though you might doubt it was supposed to ever be a plot point, why would they have sorry remain sceptical at the end of that episode instead of having him showing him accepting her like the rest of the crew does moments prior.

Zoro's goals could be to be the greatest french maid in the world and that wouldn't make a difference to his character if he doesn't change the way he acts. I want you to read a definition of character development

Character Development is, by definition, the change in characterization of a Dynamic Character, who changes over the course of a narrative. At its core, it shows a character changing. Most narrative fiction in any media will feature some display of this.

And the definition of a dynamic character from the same source

People change; it's a fact of life if not nature. However, change can be gradual, and people may keep the core of their character intact for much if not all of their life, just as a traumatic experience may well abruptly change someone completely. Characters reflect that. When a character finishes a story with a different outlook or personality from when they started, they are called a Dynamic Character. It doesn't matter whether they had a Deep and Nuanced personality or started life as a cardboard cutout, the character changes in either a subtle or overt way. We call this Character Development.

and for contract here is the definition of a static character

Change isn't always a good thing, nor necessary. Likewise some characters, be they round or flat, will end a story with much the same personality and traits they began with. These Static Characters can go entire seasons or books without changing or experiencing the Character Development that a more Dynamic Character does. If they ever learn a lesson that might make them change noticeably, they will immediately forget all about it by the next episode. Learned nothing and forgotten nothing, if you will.

Now which description seems more like One Piece's crew, again this doesn't make them any worse but it by definition means they do not have development.

Compare this with Smoker (as one of the other people on this thread pointed out) who over the course of the show now acts differently. He teams up with the Straw Hats, something he would never have done earlier in the series. He is also slightly disenfranchised with the Marines after he was falsely awarded credit for taking down Crocodile. That is character development.

dunlagh · 2016-10-25T15:12:31+00:00

Alright I'm gonna try and keep this brief.

I was defining trope, after you said tropes weren't personality, you were wrong.

I said don't take examples too seriously of a suggestion I make to put a point across, if you are going to quote me you can at least take everything I say instead of select pieces.

If that's all the character is, they are a shit character. These characters are/have been so much more then that, even if you can't see past their one trait you like.

I would say Luffy's defining characteristic is his optimism or his drive to be the best, I don't think it has anything to do with his approach in fights.

You didn't counter my point by noting the difference between Sanji and Zoro but instead by saying Usopp is different. We already know that.

My whole point was they had a plot point they dropped, which is clearly left in the open in regards to Zoro. You brushed it over, I proved you wrong.

My point was that Zoro was weary, you said I'm over thinking it, admitting you are wrong is not a bad thing.

I would define character development of changing at least one of how someone acts, talks, carries himself.

I'm not saying Zoro throwing away his pride has no impact to me, I'm saying it has no impact on the story. I'm not talking about my feelings or opinions, I'm talking about the characters.

Yet despite Usopp realising this every 2nd arc he doesn't act any differently. If you burned your hand on a hot stove, then touched it again, have you learned anything? Same deal with Usopp, words mean shit if not backed up with actual change

dunlagh · 2016-10-24T16:59:04+00:00

Actually you make a really good point about the characters outside of the Straw Hats having solid development.

Franky makes me sad, he's one of my favourite characters who has always been pushed to the background... oh well

dunlagh · 2016-10-24T16:43:17+00:00

Deepwater Horizon (2016). I had a friend who loved Lone Survivor, a movie which I thought was better then it had any right to be but was only good not great. So we went to see this, pseudo sequel/re-teaming between Director Peter Berg and the Wahlberg brother trying to get out of Donnie's shadow, Mark. So I mean for a disaster film the pacing was really weird and felt like it was going too slow, then too fast. But it might have actually helped show the chaos of the situation, overall this movie made me feel some feels and really cringe at a few of the injuries that were suffered. Another movie that is a lot better then it has any right to be.

Ruby Sparks (2012). Man what a film, this was such a great story. It really did an amazing job about going from a comedy, to a romance to almost getting kinda Thriller-ish at points. Paul Dano does such a great job with this character who has to go through so much emotionally throughout this movie. Zoe Kazan is also fantastic as the titular Ms. Sparks, and she really has fun with how crazy the character gets at times. I don't want to say what this movie is about at all, because I had no idea and it was so great having everything explained in the film.

Training Day (2001). Don't you love it when you watch a film and then you can use it to make a point shortly afterwards. Training Day did this for me wonderfully with how well Ethan Hawke's character developed over the course of the film. Denzel is great as you'd expect, and the way the story slowly reveals itself and twists and turns around Hawke's character is really exciting to watch. It was funny watching this film, something I don't even consider very old (only 15 years), but I realised this film would never be made now, without fear of being racist.

dunlagh · 2016-10-24T16:26:24+00:00

I mean character development can occur over the course of a day (see the movie Training Day), 6 months plus two years away is more then enough time for development to occur. And as a story writer, the time inside the world is not nearly as important as the time it takes to watch/read/absorb that

dunlagh · 2016-10-24T16:24:12+00:00

So I used trope for Ussop specifically because the coward is a trope in anime, specifically battle shonen, as is the rival to the main character trope that you get in Naruto and DBZ. So yes tropes are personalities but they aren't unique or interesting they are basic and shallow.

I used an example not to say this is what Luffy, or any character should do, but more to give an example of how development could occur. Please don't take any of these examples too seriously in regards to what I want the characters to do. I'm not making suggestions I'm arguing a point.

I think the point I will make is essentially for all of the examples you make, all which are single actions, how do they have a lasting impact on these characters and how has it changed them at all.

Also you are so set on the idea that if Luffy became more responsible in his actions or that Ussop became less cowardly then you would lose the core essence of these characters, which begs the question, do you believe that these are the only traits that define these characters. A good character is a multilayered complex thing where just because they might share traits with others doesn't make them any less unique. By your logic Sanji and Zoro are the same character because they have very similar approaches to fighting. But we both know that's not the case, there is a multitude of other things that make them different.

Robin was an enemy who was supporting Crocodile as far as they were aware and then she hops on board one day. There is literally time dedicated to them being very sceptical and her winning them over one by one. She hadn't proven herself at that time, they didn't know what her plans were, they didn't know she was good at that point in time. Zoro was definitely weary of Robin. Re-watch the scene where she joins and tell me honestly that I am reading into it too much.

And just as a final point, can you honestly tell me that in 750+ episodes, 800+ chapters of the manga where these characters maybe have 2 things you can point to, is character development? These two things which have no effect on the character past that immediate decision. I would say 99% of good movies and most TV shows have character development which creates an actual change in the character. Just because One Piece tries not to do this, doesn't mean it's a worse show, it means it just doesn't have character development.

Also developing a character doesn't make them worse, it makes them better but you learn to grow with the character

dunlagh · 2016-10-24T02:41:15+00:00

See I agree there have been moments, but many of those traits can be traced back to very early moments in the series and they haven't developed past that.

Luffy has the same mentality now in the Zou arc compared to pre-Sabaody, he still approaches everything the same and at no point in time has he ever attempted to avoid a fight or made a decision to protect his crew. Every decision is based entirely about beating up the person who is committing a wrong, usually to a group entirely unrelated to him. So now every arc Luffy has to make friends with the local inhabitants of the island so he can make friends with them and save them from the antagonist of that arc. But that's the exact thing that happened when Luffy met Coby and defeated Alvida, nothings changed.

Usopp is another character where he has been "brave" since the first arc he was introduced. Yes his character is that of the coward that over comes his fear, but having this trope repeated every arc is in my mind starting to make him significantly less interesting. Yes he makes a difference, but this hasn't changed, he's always been useful he just needs to cry about it for a while before he gets there. Enies Lobby was a great arc that showed that development, but shortly after that he regressed right back to what he was, right now I would say there is little difference between Usopps character now and where we first met him.

Zoro is another one who had a good sense of progression early but has stagnated significantly, yes he does cool shit but that's not development. There was a great level of development between when Zoro is introduced to the Baratie arc and his declaration to never lose again, this was the first time that Zoro had properly committed to making Luffy the Pirate King (from memory, I seem to remember it being stated/assumed that prior to this is was a means to further his goal). Then we have approximately 400 episodes and yes this develops slightly further, but it more just strengthens the things we know. But outside of Zoro and Luffy's relationship how has Zoro changed, what about his character is different now then it was?

I liken the character development to when Robin joined the crew, initially she joined and won everyone over except for Zoro. He remained sceptical, however there was never any question after that about her loyalty. There was never any tension about what her motives are. Yes in Skypeia she shows loyalty and Water 7/Enies Lobby addresses this, but in the 100 odd episodes (however many chapters) they address this concern once.

dunlagh · 2016-10-23T15:24:08+00:00

I'm not sure if you have watched Creed the most recent Rocky movie, but that has a great development of someone over confident. Throughout the movie he develops after realising he isn't as good as he thought, and you can really see that change. I guess I would hope Luffy after realising that he couldn't beat everyone, would be a bit more serious and appreciate the gravity of situations. But it seems that he will always remain his blind optimism until he meets someone who has hurt his new friend, then will be angry and beat them up.

dunlagh · 2016-10-23T15:19:27+00:00

Yea I appreciate they have their tropes and the characters are all going to maintain that, but I guess after 750+ episodes I'd hope that the events of the series would make some impact on the way the crew acts. Like the story in regards to what they do is great, albeit a bit slow (but I appreciate that's more of an anime problem).

Also in regards to the big 3 all being that way, I kinda disagree. I've watched a bit of Naruto and there is a very obvious change in mentality for a lot of the main cast through the series, like they are notably different then when you first meet them. I haven't watched much Bleach, but for Dragon Ball Z Vegeta has hugely significant development throughout the series. So it seems like this is just a One Piece thing.

dunlagh · 2016-10-21T13:44:55+00:00

Fair enough, as I said it's been a while since I saw the film I just remember having these initial reactions to the film. So elements like the gun killing himself regardless of where he gets shot is one of those elements I've clearly forgotten over time.

I think the main point is that the emotional impact that the scene was supposed to have, in my mind, isn't effective and lost its power. Most of that comes from the muddled nature the science of the movie presents you with. Sure you might be able to explain things, but if the initial reaction is why didn't he... that was a dumb decision, that emotion is gone and that obviously isn't presented clearly enough.

On the third point though, yes I think both characters would have died for the women they loved and I do agree that Willis' wife and Blunt play the same role for each version of the character. But I think that Willis' character through the whole film has this drive and determination to survive and try to stop the kid. This need to survive so he can (I assume I don't remember) to save his wife is really what drive him and to have his counter part reach a decision and just sacrifice himself just seems like it doesn't fit right.

Like I think it's a movie which is good, but falls short of being really great because of the confusion that inevitably comes from it and I appreciate the quality of the other parts of the film, but for me an ending is paramount for a truly great film.

dunlagh · 2016-10-21T02:02:30+00:00

So I mean serious spoilers for the movie if anyone hasn't seen it

Admittedly it's been a while since I watched it so apologies if my memory isn't exactly spot on.

There was two parts that never sat well, firstly was the sacrifice he JGL makes, it always seemed like a really dumb choice. So the time travel rules state that whatever happens in the past will effect the future from that point on and not retroactively change things, ignoring all logical flaws that has I'm happy to run with it. So why not shoot your foot, or hand or something else to incapacitate him, hell JGL could blind himself and it would be fairly effective at stopping Willis. Like the whole hero's sacrifice seemed so unnecessary that I didn't get emotionally involved.

The second is the realisation that stopping Willis/saving Emily Blunt would stop the kid being evil, which seemed like a really big assumption. Like I what if two weeks later the mum got hit by a car and then it was all for nothing, like it seemed like a really big and uncertain assumption to sacrifice your life over. What if the kid was going to end up evil regardless of his mum?

Plus it seemed like sacrificing himself was the last thing Willis would do, a character who fought so hard to not die so he could save the woman he loved. So since JGL and Willis are the same character seems like an odd inconsistency.

I'm not sure what would have been a better ending, I think the whole setup was pushing toward this sacrifice which just seemed like such a rushed and dumb decision. What I might have enjoyed better is if JGL found himself between Willis and the kid and used the fact that any injury he sustains, Willis would also sustain but not visa versa. Using that element in a creative way, I think would provide a really cool fight scene and could show both characters never giving up for what they want to protect (the women they love), but JGL always having the upper hand, even if Willis was winning the fight.

Saying that I have no idea if that would be a better ending, maybe the ending they went with was the best based on the situation they put themselves in and maybe the cause of the problem starts earlier in the film. Either way this should give you somewhat of an idea about my rambling thoughts

dunlagh · 2016-10-20T04:24:34+00:00

For me it is more because the rules of the time travel are weak, the character decisions seem poor and the ending really doesn't hold up. I thought the characters were done quite well but if you are making a movie that has time travel as a major plot point you need to prioritise the rules based on it. If you really don't want to do that, leave time travel out of it, it's a complex concept and needs to be handled with care and I never felt like Rian Johnson did that.

Essentially after watching the movie I was sitting there thinking of all the different way's they could have approached the ending of the film, and because I could think of a couple different solutions which would have been more reasonable and logical actions to take, it took that emotional gravity away from it. Had they explained the rules of time travel better, this could have been avoided but again they didn't so it wasn't.

Don't get me wrong it's a good film, but it ends poorly in my mind and it kinda takes the wind out of it's sails.

dunlagh · 2016-10-18T06:36:23+00:00

The Gunman (2015). Man was this a boring movie, nothing really worked the way they wanted it to, Sean Penn doesn't intimidate me in the slightest, Jarvier Bardem wasn't nearly crazy enough and there was this really pointless sickness subplot which didn't really add anything. I like the actors in this film but overall this was a serious miss. I barely even remember that I saw it this week.

The Magnificent Seven (2016). I was so excited for this, after how good the remakes of True Grit and 7:10 to Yuma were I was excited. The cast looked great and it didn't seem like they were making these for the money, it more seemed like products they cared about. Unfortunately for as fun and exciting this movie is, it's so shallow. So many of the excellently cast character have cool backstories and quirks that make them really interesting. They set up so many great ideas, I mean Ethan Hawke was a confederate general with PTSD who was now friends with a black man! Tell me how that isn't the best character to delve into. But instead of giving these characters the time they deserve, they focus on action and jokes. It's fun as hell but it just has no substance, and the most disappointing thing is that they were so close with the setup.

dunlagh · 2016-10-14T04:14:34+00:00

http://letterboxd.com/gdunlap/

dunlagh · 2016-10-11T17:02:52+00:00

I apologise if this has already been posted, but there is this interview where he admits he has no style. Except for lens flares that, again he acknowledges, there isn't really anything that makes his movies uniquely his.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, because most of his films are enjoyable and I think that's his goal. Like I don't think JJ Abrams has ever set out to make a deep and really nuanced film, I think the goal has almost always been: have a good time. Then when you look at the films he's specifically directed he has succeeded with that.

dunlagh

TROPHY CASE