Guest madddox Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 while i respect zerimar's right to be disappointed in the movie, those are some of the nitpickiest things ever. no wonder you didnt enjoy it if things like that bother you.Didn't I just say that everything I was going to mention had been mentioned already and the only things left to talk about were those? Learn to listen. The Chewbacca thing might be nitpicky, but I don't think the lightsaber thing is at all. The lightsabers and all of their iconic sound effects are a huge part of Star Wars. The same sounds have been used across all six movies, and outside the movies as well. To use anything other than what has been established takes the lightsaber--arguably a character in its own right, especially this particular one--right out of character and makes it something foreign. simmer down there. like i said, those "points" just seem nitpicky for the sake of nitpicky. i dont really think your points are "all that's left to talk about". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Darth Hunter Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Some have brought up that there was something "off" about Han Solo. I'm thinking it has to do with Ford playing him like Indiana Jones. I realize this will sound silly seeing as how it's the same actor, but when I watched TFA I felt like someone stuck Indiana Jones into the Star Wars universe. When Han uses Chewie's crossbow the first time and is astounded with the punch it packs, he has the same reaction as in the Last Crusade's tank chase. It's hard to explain so I will just post this and say go to the 3:30 mark to see what I'm talking about: The first time I saw TFA and saw Han look at the crossbow dumbfounded after firing it, I chuckled because I was immediately transported to this Indy scene. When they're on the Falcon and Han is telling Rey and Finn about what happened to Luke, how he went looking for the first Jedi Temple and basically gives a history lesson on the events post-ROTJ, it harkened back to the Indy films. Jones gives a history lesson to the other characters that is part history, part myth to explain away what they are all about to get into. Now I'm not saying all these things are necessarily bad. More like, as a fan of Indiana Jones I kept getting pulled out of TFA but I would imagine this wouldn't be a problem for most. So to me that was very "non-Star Warsy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Some have brought up that there was something "off" about Han Solo. I'm thinking it has to do with Ford playing him like Indiana Jones. Yep. First thing I mentioned about Han in my original review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 All seventy-somethings act the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good God a Bear Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 something about Chewie didn't quite look right. I think it's the eyes. They just aren't Chewbacca's eyes. That disconnected me from the character a bit. Odd complaint. Peter Mayhew has the same set of baby blues he did 40 years ago. Actually, while it is an odd complaint, Peter Mayhew wasn't the only one to play Chewie. Due to his issues some of the scenes had another person playing Chewie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevil Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 ****ing Women!! That's non Star-Warsy about TFA. Too many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANA-kin Skywalker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 No women are fine as long as they aren't black. Think about it: Star wars has white men, white women, black men...but no black women. Where the hell do the black men even come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Your mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevil Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 There's black people in it as well?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Jade Skywalker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 There's black women in the Resistance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Darth Hunter Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 As well as Carrie Fisher's daughter who wore the hair bun look just to make sure everyone knows she's Carrie Fisher's daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 something about Chewie didn't quite look right. I think it's the eyes. They just aren't Chewbacca's eyes. That disconnected me from the character a bit. Odd complaint. Peter Mayhew has the same set of baby blues he did 40 years ago. Actually, while it is an odd complaint, Peter Mayhew wasn't the only one to play Chewie. Due to his issues some of the scenes had another person playing Chewie. Mostly for the physical scenes. Pretty sure Mayhew was in there for pretty much all the scenes where Chewie's still enough that what his eyes look like could possibly matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good God a Bear Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 There's black women in the Resistance! But they are not in the forefront. I think this is because of a lack of diversity and needs to be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Jade Skywalker Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 I agree, there do need to be more women of color in starring roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevil Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 That must be an American thing. Describing people as "of colour" or "coloured" is quite offensive over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 colored is offensive, of color is not also, we spell color correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 colored is offensive, of color is not also, we spell color correctlyoh u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 That must be an American thing. Describing people as "of colour" or "coloured" is quite offensive over here.Oh, it's offensive all right. So are a lot of things. Taking offense is big business here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen123 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Chewie's voice also sounded a tiny bit different than in the OT: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevil Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 colored is offensive, of color is not also, we spell color correctlyYour bastardised English is no match for the power of this side of the pond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It's an ocean. God, what is wrong with you people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 There's black women in the Resistance! But they are not in the forefront. I think this is because of a lack of diversity and needs to be addressed.That might have something to do with a lack of a Bojangles in the forefront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odine Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It's an ocean. God, what is wrong with you people?To be fair he's the only one who calls the Atlantic Ocean "the pond". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 WHAT IS WRONG WITH HIM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zerimar Nyliram Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 To be fair, your dialect is just as bastardized. The American rhotic dialect goes back farther in history than the British/Australian non-rhotic dialect does, which started to become popular among upper-class citizens in southern England in early nineteenth century. This means that the modern American dialect is closer to the original English dialect than the modern English dialect is.And you'd be surprised how many of our expressions are closer to the originals than yours are. The punctuation mark know to you as the full-stop, but known to us as the period, was originally called a period, for example.Pretty much the main thing you've got us on is spelling. We changed that shit all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts