Jump to content

What about Finn?


Filthy Jawa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why is it that whenever some criticizes TFA someone else right away has to bring up the PT?

I suppose you didn't notice that Poe (from nightly) drew the comparison first when he said "Finn's character was the worst in the entire franchise". He did more than just criticize it. It seems you only noticed the comparisons when they were what didn't want to hear. That's unfortunate.

 

 

Newsflash, pointing out that you didn't like one movie doesn't automatically make the other movie good.

I really appreciate you taking the time to keep me informed about my own opinions with your handy-dandy Newsflash, but I have to ask: which movie did I actually say I didn't like, again? Oh wait I didn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cyborg like Maul or Grievous? CGI-ish with all these abilities? Or more like Saw Guerrera? Broken down shell of his former self?

No nothing as cartoonish as Maul or Grievous, just having robotic parts to replace damaged ones like Luke, Vader, or yeah I guess Saw too. I don't know, I'm not pushing this or anything, I just thought it might give the character an added dimension or bit of interest and might be something we didn't see coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why is it that whenever some criticizes TFA someone else right away has to bring up the PT?

I suppose you didn't notice that Poe (from nightly) drew the comparison first when he said "Poe's character was the worst in the entire franchise". He did more than just criticize it. It seems you only noticed the comparisons when they were what didn't want to hear. That's unfortunate.

Newsflash, pointing out that you didn't like one movie doesn't automatically make the other movie good.

I really appreciate you taking the time to keep me informed about my own opinions with your handy-dandy Newsflash, but I have to ask: which movie did I actually say I didn't like, again? Oh wait I didn't.
I'm talking about everyone in general, not specifically you. As Filthy Jawa pointed out every damn thread needlessly breaks down into PT vs ST.

 

Oddly enough, before the ST it used to go the other way. Whenever someone would say something negative about the PT, a PT defender would jump on the OT. "Jar Jar Binks was terrible." "Oh yeah, what about the elite troops being brought down by cute teddy bears?!?!" Or "Maul was a wasted character." "Oh yeah, what about Boba Fett going out like a pansy at the hands of a blind man?!?!" Fart jokes in the PT. Burp jokes in the OT. Now that we are getting the ST, it's been reversed. Judging from all this it seems SW peaked with ESB and it's been downhill ever since.

 

 

cyborg like Maul or Grievous? CGI-ish with all these abilities? Or more like Saw Guerrera? Broken down shell of his former self?

No nothing as cartoonish as Maul or Grievous, just having robotic parts to replace damaged ones like Luke, Vader, or yeah I guess Saw too. I don't know, I'm not pushing this or anything, I just thought it might give the character an added dimension or bit of interest and might be something we didn't see coming.
When I first saw Saw's look in R1 I didn't like it. It looked like a Halloween costume my little brother put together with whatever parts he found in the garage. But then I saw how he was portrayed in the film, a guy with few friends and many enemies on both sides of the galactic conflict. That made me appreciate that not everyone in the galaxy has the means for top notch healthcare. Anakin in the OT and Luke in the PT have the best resources at their disposal. Saw isn't so fortunate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging from all this it seems SW peaked with ESB and it's been downhill ever since.

Amen! That's all I ever wanted to say about yous guys.

 

I am not going to respark an OT vs. PT debate but the main argument I've always had about loving the PT is that it was MY childhood and you can't replace that.

 

At least the PT has something TFA doesn't, satisying battles/CGI/sound/ explosions. The Trade Federation ship falling down in the Geonosis battle was 10 times more effective then watching Starkiller blow up five whole planets.

 

TFA seems like it was trying to replace all the Glamorous explosions with deeper character development and relationships but still failed seriously hard. Feels like the director didn't give them much more directions than, 'hey it's Disney.

Act your f****** ass off'

 

Maybe we lost a lot from Finn's character because he was faking an accent. Just because lucasfilm trust him to fake an accent doesn't mean he did it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feels like the director didn't give them much more directions than, 'hey it's Disney.

Act your f****** ass off'

That right there is TFA's biggest flaw. The director. JJ Abrams was both the right and wrong person to direct it, but it's way more skewed towards the latter. Right, in that they needed a big name director known to the more casual movie-goer to instill a sense of confidence and attract more people to it (even though as a Star Wars movie, they didn't really need to do that). Wrong, in that, well, look at what we got and the debates surrounding it. It's clear that Abrams didn't have the respect for the franchise that it deserved in the same way that Gareth Edwards did (the same can be said for the new Trek movies), and Abram's particular style of movie-making just didn't fit at all with the previous movies. He's very much geared towards the flashy, modern blockbuster-style movie, engineered to look very cool and appeal to people who wouldn't usually watch sci-fi, whereas the original movies were far more about telling the story with a backdrop of great effects. I really wish they'd gone with another director, maybe even move Edwards himself from R1 to TFA, but I feel like if they had done that, it wouldn't have had the same support - Edwards hadn't even made Godzilla yet when he was picked for R1, but Abrams had lots of successful projects under his belt. As far as I can tell, Rogue One has been universally better received than TFA, and I really wish they'd started off the Sequel Trilogy with a movie more like Rogue One than TFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that you can say "universally better received" given that the two largest review aggregators (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) have TFA ranked higher. Metacritic is a substantial difference. Maybe people you are around like R1 better, but universal acclaim? That's as much of a stretch as saying Driver is a huge fan of the prequels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critic websites nowadays are something of a joke and are dependent on the individual tastes of the reviewers they use. I'd far rather gauge the reactions of genuine fans and casuals who've seen the movie but aren't necessarily fans. For example, my partner and parents, all of whom at least accept my fandom even if they don't share it at all, thought R1 a better movie than TFA, and every fan I've actually spoken to about it enjoyed R1 far more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because assessing art (and movies are an art form) isn't a science the way medicine is. I'd sure as shit see a doctor if something was wrong with me, but I avoid movie reviews like the plague. I'd far rather judge a movie for myself the first time I see it before having it analysed by art critic snobs who care more about shot composition and all that bollocks than whether or not they actually enjoyed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because assessing art (and movies are an art form) isn't a science the way medicine is. I'd sure as **** see a doctor if something was wrong with me, but I avoid movie reviews like the plague. I'd far rather judge a movie for myself the first time I see it before having it analysed by art critic snobs who care more about shot composition and all that bollocks than whether or not they actually enjoyed it.

Anyone can judge a work of art for themselves and of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if we get into talking about films being "better" or "worse", I'd rather go with an aggregate of experts who are educated in the medium over the opinions of a bunch of laypersons.

 

And especially if you're going to make claims about something being "universally better received", should the deciding factor be "what people in Kyrian's world said to him" or "what the critics of the world said" I'll go with the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrian - you're wrong. Not gonna argue it, but you made a statement that was demonstrably false, and then you decided to change the goal posts to "what my friends think."

That's cool, but not at all what you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it should.

True, it just seems odd that films are the only artistic medium where great weight is given to what critics or reviewers say. When someone releases an album, you'll have those who love the music, those who hate it and everyone else in between. But no one ever defends their opinions of the songs by saying, well Rolling Stone magazine said this about it. I can say I think Rubber Soul is the Beatles' best album. Someone else will say Abbey Road is. Whatever Billboard reviewers thought about each has zero bearing on how we support our album preferences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I never said it should.

True, it just seems odd that films are the only artistic medium where great weight is given to what critics or reviewers say. When someone releases an album, you'll have those who love the music, those who hate it and everyone else in between. But no one ever defends their opinions of the songs by saying, well Rolling Stone magazine said this about it. I can say I think Rubber Soul is the Beatles' best album. Someone else will say Abbey Road is. Whatever Billboard reviewers thought about each has zero bearing on how we support our album preferences.
Games are the same. Critics have massive sway over opinions of what is good/bad and development companies can make it huge or go bust (particularly if they are an independant company) based on poor reviews.

Visual "fine" and "high" art is the same... in the sense that critics are referred to all the time- for people to contextualise and validate their own opinions, or even formulate one, particularly with alienating genres like conceptual and abstract art- in which technicality and skill have nothing to do with the appraisal of the end product and its merits....

 

Of course none of these critics opinions really matter, because the value of art is only that which someone will pay for it, or more importantly how it makes you feel. Your engagement with it. Critics should only serve as a barometer with which to gauge your interest in viewing or partaking in an art product. Not as adjudicators of a works validity... Which is sadly how many people see critics. At the end of the day they are just another asshole with an opinion. With a critic, you might get a somewhat educated opinion... Though chances are it will be an opinion with an inflated sense of itself. With a layperson however, you'll only get an honest one. I know which id prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrian - you're wrong. Not gonna argue it, but you made a statement that was demonstrably false, and then you decided to change the goal posts to "what my friends think."

 

That's cool, but not at all what you said.

Not sure how it's demonstrably false, nor did I change the goalposts. In fact, until you pointed it out and decided to go look for myself, I had no idea that TFA had a higher critical rating than R1, which frankly baffles me, since every time I've read articles or talked to people about comparing the two, R1 has always come out on top. I also refer you to the following:

 

 

 

I never said it should.

True, it just seems odd that films are the only artistic medium where great weight is given to what critics or reviewers say. When someone releases an album, you'll have those who love the music, those who hate it and everyone else in between. But no one ever defends their opinions of the songs by saying, well Rolling Stone magazine said this about it. I can say I think Rubber Soul is the Beatles' best album. Someone else will say Abbey Road is. Whatever Billboard reviewers thought about each has zero bearing on how we support our album preferences.
Games are the same. Critics have massive sway over opinions of what is good/bad and development companies can make it huge or go bust (particularly if they are an independant company) based on poor reviews.

Visual "fine" and "high" art is the same... in the sense that critics are referred to all the time- for people to contextualise and validate their own opinions, or even formulate one, particularly with alienating genres like conceptual and abstract art- in which technicality and skill have nothing to do with the appraisal of the end product and its merits....

 

Of course none of these critics opinions really matter, because the value of art is only that which someone will pay for it, or more importantly how it makes you feel. Your engagement with it. Critics should only serve as a barometer with which to gauge your interest in viewing or partaking in an art product. Not as adjudicators of a works validity... Which is sadly how many people see critics. At the end of the day they are just another ***hole with an opinion. With a critic, you might get a somewhat educated opinion... Though chances are it will be an opinion with an inflated sense of itself. With a layperson however, you'll only get an honest one. I know which id prefer.

 

Nail hit firmly on head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not advocating for a world in which a critic's opinion of a film (or game, book, album, or any other creative work) is taken as fact, but this idea now argued, or at least heavily implied, by a few -- that critics are nothing a bunch of pompous windbags whose opinion is no more informed than the average idiot posting on the internet (including yours truly) -- is absolute poppycock.

 

Every person (Johnny Critic and Joe Public alike) is entitled to their opinion and can, of course, openly share their opinion, but when someone claims that their own opinion (and/or that of their friends) has more weight than an aggregate score of professionals who are educated in and spend all of their time in the realm of a certain medium, well that's just silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.