Rate the Last Film You Watched

Joe said:
Arrival - ★★★★½
Really, really enjoyed this. A whole movie about attempting to translate the language of the alien invaders to find out why they're here, sounds pretty boring but ending up being really compelling. Though I'm not particularly knowledgeable about linguistics, it is something that I have a minor interest in, and my biggest issue with the film is that, maybe, they didn't lean into that enough. The scene with Adams explaining why they first have to make sure the aliens understand concepts like walking, eating, or what a question even is before asking them their purpose on Earth was great, and I would've loved to see a lot more of that sort of stuff. Granted, that might not sit well with your average moviegoer though. The revelation made somewhere around the mid-point is also brilliant and makes you rethink everything you've seen up to that point. Smart, sombre and really fantastic sci-fi.
Click to expand...

The Arrival is imo one of the best Sci-Fi films ever made. It blew my mind when I saw it and I was so engrossed. I do agree on your point about going deeper into the linguistics would have been nice though in a film it's hard to really have the time for it. While I think the extras on the BD are really good a proper in depth piece on that element of the film with real world experts explaining it would have been most appreciated as its clear those working on the film did their research.

But yeah I loved the film especially since (very minor spoiler)
the twist is (so long as your paying attention) not to obtuse which means if your paying attention you'll realize it before they go fully into showing it. Now I didn't fully understand everything in that twist but it played a huge part in my personal enjoyment of the film because the enjoyment of putting together the puzzle pieces and realizing the picture before it's completed
was super satisfying and a credit to the film for sure.

I obviously fully echo Joe's review and if anyone reading this hasn't seen the film yet they should really give it a go.
 
51088-rambo-first-blood-0-70-0-105-crop.jpg

First Blood 1982
★★★★ Watched 22 Sep, 2017

Great action elevated by a poignant ending. Rambo to me comes off as Die Hard but with none of the chit chat and laughs which means it's not as fun overall but it matches it in many aspects. Almost the reverse Die Hard. And hey is this a Christmas movie to? I saw a tree in the Police Station so this counts right?


51087-rambo-first-blood-part-ii-0-70-0-105-crop.jpg

Rambo: First Blood Part II 1985
★★★½ Watched 24 Sep, 2017

While I liked the action this had less heart and impact than the first which wasn't totally unexpected but still. Perfectly solid entry but nothing more.


209322-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-0-70-0-105-crop.jpg

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 2017
★★★★½ Watched 24 Sep, 2017

This felt like the heart and soul of the MCU coming out. Few films ever make me truly happy but this film did. So many feelgood moments to go along with these characters that I have fallen completely head over heels for. GotG is now easily my favourite series in the MCU and I look forward to the next entry greatly.
 
I got to London for MCM so went to the O2 to watch Thor Ragnarok. Enjoyed it very much. A lot funnier than I was expecting in places. Probably a 4 star from me.
 
When a monster calls - 6ish/7/10 Amazon Video
As much as I like a character on tv or in a movie telling a compelling story, WMC didn't wow me much. The premise, a high school junior lives with his terminally ill mother, has to get himself to school, is often bullied etc. Until late one night a massive tree monster comes to his house. The monster tells him he will return every night at the same time each time telling him a story of the past. My main problem with the film is that none of the actors give any of the characters an original personality, apart from maybe the monster, and his stories aren't told very well they are moral lessons that aren't very clear. This does star weaver BTW but she's an old witchy fake English grandma that leaves the film often. Probably the best parts are the touching moments with the terminally ill mother and some of the chats with the monster - not exactly his stories, but there are more chats with the monster and more mention of his stories then the mother's part in the film. I feel like it could have been done better with clearer stories and more effort put into most of the characters
 
Breathe

Based on True Events you can definitley tell the team working on the movie had a real invested interest in this emotional, personal story and that passion shows as the story is done justice and is told in a sensitive way. Though the film follows through very conventionally, there are moments that work real well and certainly will see the film up there in awards contention, but there are also moments that seem like they trying to hard to capture that attention as well. There are a good core of British Supporting actors who play there roles effectively, but it's the leads Andrew Garfield and Claire Foy who steal the show, Garfield as Robin Cavendish comes across as Likeable and Inspiring in his role and Claire Foy delivers a strong performance as Diana Cavendish with the whole Strong, Stiff Upper Lip, Keep Calm stichk. At first I thought it was going to be a little too British: bit too much Cricket, Jolly Good and Cups of Tea for my liking, but when the real crux of the story enters I found myself really engaged with the movie. Cinematography is absolutely outstanding with some fantastic imagery. But overall the film is solid with an inspiring and emotional core with some interesting topics in discussion such as disability and the rights of people with disabilities as well as topics such as the right of life.
 
[REC] (2007)

The first entry in the Spanish found-footage horror quadrilogy, and often lauded as the best, [REC] was a pretty damn good film, even if I do think it's perhaps a little slow. I know that horror films are all about the build up to the scary bits, but the first half of this film, whilst not boring or dull, isn't exactly tense or scary either, consisting mostly of people shouting over each other or several characters repetitively asking the guy holding the camera to stop filming. However, once you get over the hump, this film really hits its stride, quickly becoming a genuinely intense and claustrophobic experience, peppered with well earned jump scares, created through proper build up and pay off as opposed to cheap loud noises like in lesser movies of the same ilk. The choice to go with a mix of science and religion to hint at the cause of the infection is one I found intriguing, and is something I hope is explored more in the sequels, as it was only really brushed up on here towards the end.

Made on a tiny (by film standards) budget of around a million and a half euros, you can certainly see the limitations reflected in the special effects works, often looking less than stellar, or cutting away to avoid having to actually show some of the more grim moments. The fast movement and handheld camera work help to disguise most of this however, and is only really noticeable in close up shots. If there is one impressive effect however, it's the creature from the final scene, looking really freakish and somewhat realistic, no doubt helped by the night vision and minimal lighting.

One of the best elements of the film, to me at least, is the performance of the lead actress Manuela Velasco, whose energetic and instantly likeable turn as a spunky TV reporter really gives you someone to genuinely root for, which is a rarity in the horror genre, usually filled with bland or downright despicable assholes that you're just waiting to be axed off. None of the other actors are bad per say, with one exception being the initial infected woman, whose acting is somewhat laughable, but no other character stands out to me, least of all the faceless cameraman Pablo. If there's one thing Cloverfield taught me, it's that the character holding the camera can still be an actual character, and I'd have liked to have seen attempts made at that here.

On the whole, [REC] is a film that's certainly worth a watch for fans of horror that can stomach the found footage style and don't mind sitting through a bit of a slow start. Personally, I'm super interested to see how the sequel pans out. It's set just 15 minutes after the events of this first film, so a slow start doesn't seem like it'd be a factor. I'm also curious to see how the often panned US remake of [REC], Quarantine, is. I've heard it's pretty much shot for shot, so I'd be interested to know what makes to so poor compared to the Spanish original.
 
Justice League

Okay, I won't do a proper write up because the amount of points I have means that I'd be here forever, so I present some points in the form of a list, just to make it easier. Some mild spoilers but nothing too bad unless you can't predict something blatantly obvious.

-Both Batman and Superman feel like totally different characters from their previous outings. This film makes BvS seem like it's from a totally different universe. Batman and Superman now feel the need to quip and snark their way through proceedings. Joss Whedon's fingerprints are all over this, and that's not really a bad thing since I prefer the tone of this movie, but it just further leads into this whole cinematic universe feeling like a mess.

-Speaking of Whedon, the plot of this movie is *identical* to the first Avengers movie. Group of superheroes join forces to fight an invading army and defeat the villain and take back a cube. Oh, and the villain is only a henchmen to a bigger threat that will feature in a later movie.

-One of the biggest successes was the fact Aquaman is actually really badass, unlike most depictions of the character, however he never uses his powers. He's pretty much just a beefcake with a trident.

-Contrasting to that, Flash in unbearably bad. Some reviews I've read say he's a highlight but he doesn't have a single line of dialogue that isn't wince-inducing levels of cringe, with each poor attempt at comedy being more groan worthy than the last.

-Cyborg is dull as dishwater. How they plan on giving him his own movie I will never know.

-The three new additions to the big screen, Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg, all feel pretty useless in the grand scheme. It almost feels like you could've made this with just Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman and you wouldn't really be missing much.

-Steppenwolf if an awful villain. Just plain, generic and totally lacking in memorability.

-I know the accent is cute and everything, but Gal Gadot can still not act.

-Was it really necessary to make every male character barring Superman have a raging hard on for Wonder Woman?

-Like the majority of these DC movies, the last 20 minutes is just a CGI eyesore clusterfuck. They really need to think of better ways to end movies.

-The unexpected cameos both during a flashback scene near the beginning and the second post credits scenes were really cool.

-At just under 2 hours long, this movie is rather quite short, but I liked that. BvS felt bloated and needlessly convoluted, so this is a good change of pace. There's probably gonna be an extended cut, but I genuinely don't think it's needed.

-Although I am picking a lot of holes in it, I still enjoyed this film on a surface level, the pacing is good and it's never dull, it's just when you break it down it begins to crumble.
 
@IncendiaryLemon I actually put my head in my hands at the end of the trailer for Justice League after that painfully unfunny scene with Batman and Flash. I suspected right then and there this was going to be a case of "Hey, Marvel have QUIRKY characters and quipping and that's popular - LET'S DO THAT!" And maybe it would have worked... if they hadn't already established a totally different tone with the previous Superman films. And if they had better writers. I mean I tend to cringe at some of the "comedy" in the Marvel films - I enjoyed Thor: Ragnarok immensely but that one character who was obviously just inserted for pointless comic relief (you know the one), made me want to punch someone in the mouth because it was extra comic relief the movie didn't even need since there were already some genuinely funny moments between the main characters that felt natural, rather than shoehorned in. I get the feeling this stuff is going to feel extra shoehorned in in Justice League since it wasn't present in the previous films.

I'll still go see it because I have a pass and it won't cost me anything, but I'm not hopeful. My gut feeling (and well, the reviews) tells me it's going to be yet another disappointment of a DC movie, which is maddening given all the potential being squandered.
 
[REC] 2 (2009)

[REC] 2, the found footage horror sequel, is to its predecessor, 2007's [REC], what James Cameron's Aliens is to the original Ridley Scott classic Alien, turning what was originally a slow building and intense horror film into more of a horror and action hybrid, with pretty great results. Taking place just 15 minutes after the original film's ending, [REC] 2 follows members of a SWAT team as they attempt to eradicate the infected contained within the building from the first movie. As I mentioned, and as you can probably infer from the characters this time around, the arming of the characters does lead to a lot more action and a lot less horror. I mean sure, there's plenty of gore to go around, but in terms of actual suspense and atmosphere, very little remains, and nothing in this film actually scared me in a traditional sense, however if you are more into splatter films, then this film will certainly be your bag, and as it so happens, I totally fall into said category. Although it had its moments, the first film was quite reserved with its gore, but the massive increase in budget this go around means the directors were free to go nuts and go nuts they did. Pacing sees a big improvement due to this new angle, meaning that the film is full on pretty much from the word go, with the first infected kill happening a mere 10 minutes in. I can see some people not liking this, especially if there loved this first one, but I honestly much prefered it.

Whilst I wasn't too thrilled that the mystery from the end of the first movie is just solved through an exposition dump early on in the film, I did quite enjoy the story here, as it does explore and expand on the elements from the end of the first one I thought were interesting, and unlike some horror sequel retreads, it feels very distinct from the first movie and not just a rehash. The use of multiple cameras allows the filmmakers to offer different perspectives, not just being stuck with one person for the duration, and the fact the SWAT team's cameras are helmet mounted means the POV character doesn't have to be totally useless. That being said, where this film falls apart is when 40 minutes in, it switches perspective to a new group of characters for a while, which ends up being totally pointless. As well as switching perspective, the film goes back in time to the start of the film to see how these characters got involved with the plot, eventually switching perspectives back when the characters meet the first group in the present (if that makes sense). This second group of characters only serve as cannon fodder in the grand scheme, making the whole sequence with them not only incredibly jarring, stopping the story in its tracks to spend time with these characters instead, but it's also ultimately a waste of time, and only serves to act as padding. At a scant 85 minutes, I can kind of see why they might need padding, but honestly, it'd have been better if it was padded with stuff that is at least kinda relevant to the story.

One of the biggest casualties over the first film is characters, or more specifically, the lack of the main character from [REC], Angela. She was the most memorable character, and I ended up liking her a lot by the end, so the fact she's only in the last 15 minutes or so is a little disappointing, especially when all we have in her place are a group of generic SWAT guys.

On the whole, I do probably prefer [REC] 2 over the first, if for no other reason than the faster pace and bigger reliance on gore, which is more my cup of tea, and the expansion of the story. However, I could totally see big fans of the first film hating this with a passion due to how different a direction it takes.
 
IncendiaryLemon said:
Justice League

Okay, I won't do a proper write up because the amount of points I have means that I'd be here forever, so I present some points in the form of a list, just to make it easier. Some mild spoilers but nothing too bad unless you can't predict something blatantly obvious.

-Both Batman and Superman feel like totally different characters from their previous outings. This film makes BvS seem like it's from a totally different universe. Batman and Superman now feel the need to quip and snark their way through proceedings. Joss Whedon's fingerprints are all over this, and that's not really a bad thing since I prefer the tone of this movie, but it just further leads into this whole cinematic universe feeling like a mess.

-Speaking of Whedon, the plot of this movie is *identical* to the first Avengers movie. Group of superheroes join forces to fight an invading army and defeat the villain and take back a cube. Oh, and the villain is only a henchmen to a bigger threat that will feature in a later movie.

-One of the biggest successes was the fact Aquaman is actually really badass, unlike most depictions of the character, however he never uses his powers. He's pretty much just a beefcake with a trident.

-Contrasting to that, Flash in unbearably bad. Some reviews I've read say he's a highlight but he doesn't have a single line of dialogue that isn't wince-inducing levels of cringe, with each poor attempt at comedy being more groan worthy than the last.

-Cyborg is dull as dishwater. How they plan on giving him his own movie I will never know.

-The three new additions to the big screen, Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg, all feel pretty useless in the grand scheme. It almost feels like you could've made this with just Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman and you wouldn't really be missing much.

-Steppenwolf if an awful villain. Just plain, generic and totally lacking in memorability.

-I know the accent is cute and everything, but Gal Gadot can still not act.

-Was it really necessary to make every male character barring Superman have a raging hard on for Wonder Woman?

-Like the majority of these DC movies, the last 20 minutes is just a CGI eyesore clusterfuck. They really need to think of better ways to end movies.

-The unexpected cameos both during a flashback scene near the beginning and the second post credits scenes were really cool.

-At just under 2 hours long, this movie is rather quite short, but I liked that. BvS felt bloated and needlessly convoluted, so this is a good change of pace. There's probably gonna be an extended cut, but I genuinely don't think it's needed.

-Although I am picking a lot of holes in it, I still enjoyed this film on a surface level, the pacing is good and it's never dull, it's just when you break it down it begins to crumble.
Click to expand...
Some of the **** Whedon reshot was embarrassingly cringey, that Flash on WW moment... Jesus. Why Joss? That has never been funny and never will it's 2017 man.

He is also responsible for all WW ass shots and everyone lusting over her...

It's like he reshot every end scene to add a quip. That Batman one was soooooo terrible I wanted to vomit.

Also adding the red hue in the third act was his idea, it looked far more realistic in Snyder's version (see trailer 1) since Snyder shot it darker a lot of the CG will thus hidden and less obvious but making everything red and bright it become more obvious...

I'm beyond pissed right now at WB and Kevin, so much stuff got cut it's unbelievable, unsurprisingly most character stuff, that would have fixed most the issues I had. You're supposed to care for these chars so giving them depth and background HELPS. Jesus WB. They tried to pander and it fell straight on their faces. Hilarious in a way. Instead should have kept the film how Snyder wanted it and it wouldn't have fared any worse.

No wonder Snyder hasn't seen the film yet.
 
I've just finished watching Justice League. Very enjoyable for me and my friend, who's a massive fan of the comics. Didn't find much issue with the CGI or the story tbh. Liked the cast and even the villain was alright (comic book villains are pretty meh most of the time in these films, DC or Marvel)

Biggest problem was that they cut like 40 minutes out which I hope gets restored for the Blu Ray (why Warner Bros, why?)

It wasn't perfect by any means but was worth seeing for sure. Oh and the post-credits scene, did not see that coming...
 
[REC] 3: Genesis

Although it may say [REC] 3 on the front of the box, this is a third entry into the [REC] franchise purely on the name. It actively baffles me that one of the directors behind this movie was part of the duo that directed the first two, because this film is worlds apart from the others. My biggest and most prominent complaint with [REC] 3 is with the tone. Whereas both [REC] and [REC] 2 are entirely straight laced and self serious horror films, [REC] 3 has a heavy reliance on absurd amounts of blood and gore, to the point where it's just comical. Now, not to say this franchise has ever been tame in that area, but the way it was shot and the actual execution of the scenes made them feel genuinely quite horrific, which is in stark contrast to the nigh slapstick violence featured here, featuring decapitations, arms being chopped off, infected being cleaved in half with a chainsaw, and so on. On some level, I actually really like and appreciate the kind of thing they have going here, I'm not averse to fun and campy horror films, but its purely because this is a [REC] film that I object to it so hard. The less serious tone isn't just restricted to the violence either, with there being several attempts to inject humour into proceedings, and every single one of them just falls flat, [REC] film or not. For example, there's this running gag where there's a guy dressed up as a copyright friendly version of Spongebob called John Sponge. That's the joke. That's literally it. It's just bad.

Compiling on the fact that this doesn't feel like a [REC] film, the plot also has very little to do with either of the prior entries, featuring 0 returning cast members, and taking place in an entirely different location to boot. Lip service is paid in an attempt to loosely tie things in, such as seeing a news report about the original building in the background, and the origin of the infection at this wedding being due to the same dog mentioned in the first film, but aside from that, this could've easily been a stand alone movie. Hell, they even ditch the found footage, for which the series is named. Well, not entirely. For some reason, I'm guessing because they felt obliged to, the first 20 minutes are in the same style as you'd expect, but after that, it changes into a more traditional movie.

At some point, you'd have been better off calling this WEDDING BASED ZOMBIE MOVIE or literally anything else besides [REC], because it has so little to do with anything that the name is plain misleading. I'm so glad there's a fourth and final film that actually brings back the tone and star of the original, to end the franchise on a high, because if this was the final entry, I'd be so mad. Here's hoping the finale can live up to my expectations.
 
Train to Busan (2016)

At the risk of damning with faint praise, it was the best zombie film I've seen in years. The 'undead on a train' premise isn't the most revolutionary, but the characterisation is pitch perfect and the film doesn't half go. To put it in context, I was feeling a bit poorly when I sat down to watch it; by the time it was over, I had enough adrenaline in my system to see through time. My only complaint is that the tagline was not "Ridin' Trains and Eatin' Brains".
 
Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

I actually watched this as soon as it was released, kinda surprised I'm the first to post about it. First impressions were that it was roughly 73 times better than TFA (there were certainly a couple of none-too-subtle jabs by Johnson as he seemed to gleefully destroy some of the cliché setups of the fist film in the trilogy, now I'm even more apprehensive about Abrams coming back for IX) but it did have a couple of fairly major issues which I felt were with the villains and with wasted characters, which often went hand in hand. Spoilers obviously follow.

First there's Snoke - I mean what the Hell? Everyone had so many questions, some of which were even raised in this film - How did he come to lead the Imperial Remnant/First Order? How did he learn to use the force? How did Luke know him and how did he know that he'd gotten his claws into Ben/Kylo? Why does he talk like he knew Vader? None of these questions it seems will be answered, at least not in the films. Probably we'll have to read a tie-in novel to get the full story, and that's just a huge let down because it means none of it is important to the plot. He was built up as this mysterious figure and featured heavily in the trailer only to be unceremoniously offed and forgotten about.

Then there's Phasma, wasted for a second time. Again, a character built up heavily in marketing for both films who has about half a dozen lines and five minutes of screentime in each. A great opportunity to feature a capable and imposing female villain (have there been any major female antagonists in the SW films?) wasted completely on a single action scene. Yes, it was a good action scene. But the character... Well she has no character.

And last but not least, there's Kylo himself. During the first half of the film things were going well. He seemed to be shedding his whiny little Anakin II persona and becoming a more ambiguous character, only to ultimately double down on the eeevil and become the equal of the horribly one-dimensional General Hux (who frankly makes even Tarkin look nuanced) in moustache twirling villainy.

Diane, if you're ever stuck in an unwinnable situation piloting a lightspeed capable starship under heavy assault, it is possible, if you have exhausted all other options, to use the lightspeed drive to launch a kamikaze attack and destroy a ship ten times the size of your own. Don't ask me how, I thought the whole idea of travelling through lightspeed was to leave a specific point in space and arrive at another, but apparently you can. One might have thought such a tactic would have become a very easily exploited weapon to destroy enemy starships long ago, perhaps even planets, but what do I know. God, these stars are beautiful Diane.

But that all sounds very negative, and the truth is my experience was overwhelmingly the opposite. On the Rebellion/Resistance side of things, everything was much better handled. I think every single "good guy" introduced in TFA became a much better character - Rey struggled and overcame as protagonists invariably will. With the help of Rose, Finn conquered his fears and finally came to believe in the cause itself rather than just protecting his friends and Poe was a hothead with a heart who played wonderfully off a brilliant Leia, who I'm so happy was featured prominently in this film. It's a fine send-off to Carrie Fisher and to the character. Every moment spent with these characters was a joy. The dialogue and the chemistry felt more natural than it's ever felt in a Star Wars film.

And it looks beautiful too. From the space battles to Snoke's throne room to Luke's Island, the design and direction were just stunning, at all times. This is the kind of film the small screen is just not going to do justice and strengthens my resolve to finally bite the bullet and blow four to five-hundred quid on a 1080p projector.

And speaking of Luke, Mark Hamill can moan all he likes about the direction they took Luke but I think this was a wonderful arc for the character. There's a wealth of stories from the old EU about Jedi becoming disillusioned with the Jedi Order but the fact Luke is the one who sees the flaws in the new canon is not only a good reinforcement of how much he's learned and reflected and become a Master, but as the titular "last Jedi" and the son of the man who destroyed the Jedi Order partly because of their inflexible dogma, it makes perfect sense he could see the flaws when the old Order was too self absorbed and self reinforcing to notice them or to change. He's a more cynical character yes, but that old playful and idealistic Luke keeps shining through and his scenes are the ones I'm going to remember.

But... in my heart of hearts I know I belong to the Dark Side. I've known that ever since Vader choking out that Imperial officer in ANH first put a smile on my face, in my dismay when Maul was killed in the first Prequel film, my subsequent joy at him being brought back in The Clone Wars, my disappointment with how poorly Anakin's fall was handled in RotS, my terrible crush on Asajj Ventress and my Palpatine grin when Thrawn first walked onto the screen in Rebels. So why must my beloved villains suffer such indignities in the live action films? Can't we have just one interesting, compelling villain, please?
 
@ayase saw the film for the first time today and I agree with everything you said. I like the new films as they seem to bring the spirit back from the original films (I pretend eps 1-3 never happened as they are just bad)

I really need to watch/buy rebels specially as it has Thrawn in it...he is simply my fave SW villain and can’t wait for the new Thrawn novel from Timothy Zahn.
 
The Disaster Artist
Based on the book by actor Greg Sestero who played Mark in the infamously bad movie "The Room", this film is essentially about how that film was made. It doesn't really give you any more insight into the production compared to what is already in the public domain (such as who the hell Tommy is, where his fortune comes from, where he's from), however James Franco is possibly a better Tommy Wiseau than Tommy Wiseau. Sometimes he plays in a rather empathetic way as if he's some sort of lovable childish dolt, other times he shows his other side; the rather jealous control freak who possibly has homoerotic feelings for Greg. I think they could made the production of the film a bit more weirder. Certainly I've heard stranger stories about the film than those in this adaptation. They also don't explain the cult around the film all that well outside archival footage shown as an epilogue. I also thought that the comparisons between the original film and the remade footage for this film was unnecessary. But overall it was really fun, easily more entertaining than sitting through "The Room".
 
Last edited:
@ayase Did you not think it was just a rehash and regurgitation of the original trilogy? I enjoyed it as a film but spend the entire time thinking "ooh that happened in Empire, this bit is like Jedi, that line was directly lifted from one". I don't think they're targeting the existing fan-base at the moment and are just gunning for the kids (i don't like kids so that's okay). They decided that most of the expanded universe with games and books and what not are no longer cannon. Then they started using them.

So given that George Lucas wrote The Force Unleashed (the game) and said it was cannon, then Disney said no it's not but we won't use it anyway. Then they used the name of the lead character to name the base, then they killed a character in the same way and by the same person as the game (Force Unleased 2) it just leaves me thinking Jedi Academy. Also the twins.

Didn't like the thing with the rebel rings and the last scene of the film. Felt like a toy advert. No like an actual advert.
 
Adam-M said:
@ayase Did you not think it was just a rehash and regurgitation of the original trilogy? I enjoyed it as a film but spend the entire time thinking "ooh that happened in Empire, this bit is like Jedi, that line was directly lifted from one". I don't think they're targeting the existing fan-base at the moment and are just gunning for the kids (i don't like kids so that's okay). They decided that most of the expanded universe with games and books and what not are no longer cannon. Then they started using them.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm fine with that. Some of the old EU was great, but a lot of it was terrible fanfic tier (as are a couple of the new novels, regrettably). Lucas was always of the opinion he'd ignore the EU if he ever came to make the sequels himself, so I don't feel like anything really changed. Taking stuff that worked and was well liked (like Thrawn, the Mandalorians, ) and re-inserting it into a more coherent universe seems perfectly sensible to me, and it's the sort of thing comic book universes have been doing for decades.

I haven't actually played the Force Unleashed games, but what I do know of the plot has never sounded particularly appealing to me (trying to hammer new events and characters into an established time-line that was never designed with them in mind rarely turns out well) regardless of whether it had Lucas' approval or not. And it's hard to say where it fitted - the old canon with its weird tier system, where basically word of Lucas could contradict anything EU creators did (when they weren't contradicting each other) was pretty ridiculous and I'm happy we now have the LSG to make sure everything makes sense.

As for originality - Is there even any left? Like, at all? We have complete media saturation, everyone is surely aware by now every story that can be told has already been told a million times over, and that fiction is really just about retelling the same stories over again in a slightly different and entertaining way. I think originality is now genuinely impossible. Stories will always be like other stories that already exist if you look hard enough.
 
Back
Top