Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:1/23/2011
Last Login:10/01/2016
Comment Ranking:#5906
Highest Content Rank:#5531
Highest Comment Rank:#2025
Content Thumbs: 30 total,  47 ,  17
Comment Thumbs: 4209 total,  5408 ,  1199
Content Level Progress: 50.84% (30/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 7% (7/100)
Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 239 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Content Views:3728
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1269
FJ Points:4014

latest user's comments

#234 - It's not that the masses have bad taste, it's that the masses …  [+] (3 replies) 01/04/2016 on (untitled) -1
User avatar
#300 - drldrl (01/04/2016) [-]
I've seen a lot of old and foreign movies with shitty acting. They both have lower budgets unless they're the best of either category. Lower budgets mean lesser actors.
Take Chinese martial arts movies. I've been watching a lot lately, and more than half have actors that exaggerate everything to comical levels. Though some of the more popular ones were very good. And almost every old one I've seen is absolutely horrible.
#370 - kanedam (01/04/2016) [-]
to be fair, the exaggeration in those movies is wanted because its a cultural thing.
even the way people walk was in chinese theater already showing what character they were playing, as they had different ways of walking for the hero, the villain, the comic side kick, the idiot, the master, and so on...
User avatar
#357 - frenzysalem (01/04/2016) [-]
I'm not saying every old/ foreign movie is good. I'm saying maybe if people looked at, oh, the 110 year history of film BEFORE the year 2000, they might find something they like. And to be fair, you kind of have to take kung fu movies and the like a little less seriously. Those are mostly made to show off fancy coriography and not as much cinematic value. Much like you can't take Adam West's Batman seriously in the same aspect, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. But all I have to say is you've probably been watching the wrong stuff. Each decade has probably at least 10 movies that can be considered timeless classics. In the past FIFTEEN YEARS there's been probably 7 or 8. And that's like, LotR and SW type stuff with sequels. And the best directors can work with a low budget. That's the thing. If someone insists they need a higher budget or else the movie can't be made, they're probably relying way too heavily on needless special effects. Movies like Cat People and Eraserhead had pretty low budgets and they did great and jumpstarted their respective directors career.
#31 - Well it was kind of unnecessary for him to even have a helmet.…  [+] (10 replies) 01/02/2016 on Anon on Kylo Ren +6
User avatar
#52 - huntergriff (01/02/2016) [-]
ventress wasn't a sith. she was a dark jedi.
User avatar
#33 - dagold (01/02/2016) [-]
I think he wore the mask because he was trying to mimic vader as much as possible. He wasn't the unspeakably badass "Evil just to be evil" character everyone was expecting, he turned out to be just some confused, misguided kid still struggling with his decision. A lot of people hated that, but I felt it made him more real than just some random disposable bad ass or Anakin who went from good guy to murdering kids in less than ten minutes of screen time.
#115 - questionableferret (01/02/2016) [-]
The trouble is not that he is unexpected. The problem is that he is unsatisfying. The guy is built up as having single-handedly destroyed Luke's new Jedi Order, he is presented as a complete badass in the first few shots of the film we see him in, and he gets his ass handed to him by Rey, who has held a lightsaber for approximately five minutes of screentime.

It is similar to the reveal of the Mandarin in Iron Man 3. Yeah, the reveal is cool and all, but it's not as satisfying as it could otherwise have been.

If Ren didn't throw hissy-fit tantrums and was actually threatening outside of the first scene of the movie then it'd work better because what he is beneath the mask is still something of substance, and a presence in the narrative worthy of respect, and if he had managed to at least hold his own against Rey instead of getting beaten to the floor and saved by the ground splitting open coincidentally then that too would have gone a long way to legitimising him as a character.

But honestly I think the biggest reason is that he's not a Star Wars villain. He's a villain in Star Wars, but Star Wars has always been characterised by striking visuals. Regardless of how bad the writing in the prequels gets the visuals and world-building still stick with you (sometimes for the wrong reasons but still) and the Podrace and the Colosseum are clear homages to Ben Hur and Gladiator, just as Vader and the Cantina are homages to Samurai and the Old West respectively. But Ren really doesn't fit there. His design is really uninspired, which is very rare for villains in Star Wars, and his demeanour, actions throughout the story, and presence within the scenes he is in is far less than that of even General Grievous, because even at his worst Grievous was still at least presented as a viable threat to the protagonists.

I love Kylo Ren in concept, but much like pretty much everything else in the film, it really stumbles on the execution, lacking in that distinctly 'Star Wars' vibe of being naturally iconic in the same way that Phasma, BB-8, and TR8-T0R are, even if their roles in the film were relatively minor compared to that of Ren.
User avatar
#112 - angelious (01/02/2016) [-]
yh. i personally disliked how it turned out to be. not the concept in itself...

the concept could have been great. but they didnt invest enough time to it to make it work...they can still retroactively save it in the next movies..but for now, ben was something of a failure as a villain...
#80 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
No, you're kinda missing part of his point. He is literally "Evil just to be evil." He assumes that is what being a sith means, and therefore tries to pick the most evil option whenever he can, because he wants to prove himself as a sith. Of course, this kinda does the opposite. Being a sith isn't about killing for the sake of killing, it's about consolidating power. And killing Jedi.
#41 - haytux (01/02/2016) [-]
When he has his hood down (or off), you can see that the shape of Kylo's helmet is really similar to Vader's. I didn't like his indecision because it made it seem like the light was the wrong choice, the one you have to force yourself away from, when the dark side is all about temptation. Not to mention, this kid grew up surrounded by the light side, so the fact that he turned so far from the light AND was still undecided made him seem like a wishywashy rebellious teenager for no reason other than to rebel (IMO). I'm just hoping we see him be a full on Sith now, rather than pull a Vader and turn back at the end. [spoiler] Don't get me wrong, Vader's redemption was a great plot point. We see Vader be swayed through most RotJ though, while we've seen Kylo make his decision in the first movie, so having him turn back to a good guy in the end after [spoiler]killing his father [/spoilerwould feel kind of like a cop out (again, IMO). I will agree that he feels much better of a character than Anakin.
User avatar
#42 - dagold (01/02/2016) [-]
I think that after he got his shit rocked by a completely inexperienced jedi he will likely fall further from the light in his anger and become more the unrelenting menace everyone wanted him to be. However it is possible that Han allowed himself to be killed in order for Kylo Ren to maintain his cover and possibly take down that new master which is why his struggle with the light is so prominent. He has to maintain the darkness despite his allegiance to the light, like he never truly wanted to leave the light side or maybe he just feels he might not have made the right choice.
#45 - haytux (01/02/2016) [-]
oh fuck my spoiler didn't work in my last comment.
Also, for your second theory, I never even thought about that, but it makes a lot of sense. Both of those ideas give me more hope for the next movies, because while I liked Force Awakens, it felt like it was walking on ground we've already covered like the entirety of A New Hope, for example.
User avatar
#46 - dagold (01/02/2016) [-]
I can understand the feeling of 'more of the same' but I feel like this movie needed that. We needed to be shown the new director understood what we loved about star wars and brought in the old formula as a way to ease in fans from both generations without taking any huge risks right away. I have faith that the next couple movies at least will begin taking more and more steps to blow minds like the original trilogy did.
#81 - anon (01/02/2016) [-]
No, see, there's a difference between making homages and references here and there to what people loved, and plagiarizing the entire movie. It's like they took episode IV, scrubbed out a couple nouns/names, and then played mad libs with it. There is barely an ounce of originality in the entire movie. I wanted to love it, I really did, but if I wanted to watch Episode IV, I'd watch Episode IV. Instead of a glorious return to Star Wars, with a refreshing and new story, I just got more of the same. And don't get me wrong, I love Episode IV, and it's not a bad story, but it's pretty fucking disappointing when they build something up and then go "yeah, we couldn't actually hire any writers worth a damn." I found it so goddamn the same, that I keep accidentally referring to episode VIII as episode V. Like, I have to fuckin' correct myself. To be THAT MUCH THE SAME to Episode IV is not okay. Still better than Episode 1-3, though.
#13 - Picture 12/23/2015 on Shots fired 0
#11 - Picture  [+] (2 replies) 12/23/2015 on Shots fired 0
#12 - newprinny (12/23/2015) [-]
When I was still in high school, I had class at 7 in the morning, so I got up at 4 so I had plenty of time to work out a bit, shower, get dressed, and drive up to school by 6:45, dood
#13 - frenzysalem (12/23/2015) [-]
#224 - I couldn't disagree more. As a film major, I see movies as pie…  [+] (4 replies) 12/22/2015 on Phasma Menace 0
User avatar
#227 - aggronlover (12/22/2015) [-]
BUt I am referring to big hoollywood blockbusters. Of course a movie has to be good and there are plenty of actors/directors who are in it for the art. Heck, many people who worked on this movie were so eager because it is a Star Wars movie. My point is that nowadays any big-name movie has monetary gain as a concern by default.
And just because they are cash-grabs doesn't mean they can't be artful. People speak as if those two things are mutually exclusive. Was this movie a massive cashgab? Yes, it was. But the acting was phenominal, a ton of practical effects were used, and the story may have been somewhat unoriginal but it had it's solid tweaks and twists. The characters where very interesting and well-executed. Art evolves.
User avatar
#230 - questionableferret (12/22/2015) [-]
Mad Max: Fury Road - Hollywood Blockbuster with big budget. Practical effects. Utter labour of love. Tells story mostly visually. Is a sequel to a long-dead franchise.

Star Wars: The Original Blockbuster. Tiny budget. Big production values for that budget. Has become one of the cornerstones of film-making and has started a real-life religion and instilled hope into the hearts of hundreds of millions of fans.

The Lego Movie: A MASSIVE corporate cashgrab and one of the smartest movies to come out in a very long time. Effortlessly hilarious. Instantly nostalgic. Completely relatable. Utterly brilliant.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens: Meh acting. Forced characters. No theme. No message. High quality effects that lacked originality in design and drew heavily from a style that does not translate properly to modern filming techniques. Characters were bare-bones and mostly one-note.

Art evolves, but as with all evolution, mistakes are made and only the fittest survive. This film is not bad, it's incompetent, with basic failures in writing, editing, and shot composition that even a casual film enthusiast can't fail to ignore. It regresses behind even the prequels in regards to having a message, something that the Star Wars series has always held over the heads of lesser blockbusters.

All in all, this film didn't deserve to be made. They chose a very bad director for the job. They needed someone who knows how to slow down and breathe, because Star Wars is not defined by its action scenes. Rather it is defined by the quiet scenes. Intimate moments of reflection and wisdom that build both the characters and the audience into better people.

This film was trash.
User avatar
#232 - aggronlover (12/22/2015) [-]
I strongly disagree with your opinion on the acting and the characters , and I couldn't see any real problems in the writing admittedly because it mainly sticks to an established formula but everyone is entitled their own opinion. I thought the movie had a soul, and to me it was an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish, and the humour was organic. The one point where I agree with you is that the film doesn't have a clear-cut message, but Star Wars is, at it's core, the tale of a classic battle between good and evil and TFA did a good job of carrying that over. It also brings a new and interesting villain with Kylo Ren although I admit that's mostly a matter of personal taste, as there are a good deal of people who didn't like him that much apparently . That's how I feel about the film, and while I enjoy discussing it's pros and cons because in earnest, it did have flaws , I don't think that opinion will change anytime soon.
User avatar
#234 - questionableferret (12/22/2015) [-]
Well at least you're honest. Enjoy what you want to enjoy and don't let anyone tell you otherwise, just don't let that deafen you to criticism. I've got pretty high standards of what I call 'good' acting. Most people seem to call acting that isn't actually bad 'good' but having worked in the theatre industry for a while now I'm well acquainted with a lot of different kinds of acting and these actors... had nothing to work with.

It is clear from almost every single line delivered in the film that Abrams was running them on a treadmill. The lines are said without a beat being missed. One after the other after the other. He thinks that pouring information onto the viewer is how you create a tense action scene but that directorial style doesn't work here. Even outside of the action scenes the lines are delivered far too quickly and there aren't enough pauses between lines for it to seem like natural conversation. And the editing is incompetent as well.

There is a game called 'The Five Second Rule' where you count how long the shots last. If they don't last over 5 seconds then they lose. This doesn't apply in action scenes. There were a bunch of dialogue scenes that I was counting, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3. There were more shots beneath 5 seconds than over them and that does not allow for establishing a scene.

Actually google the cantina scene from the first Star Wars and see how it is shot. There is a lot of information poured on the viewer but it does not come too fast. It is made clear that Luke is looking around the place and then we get a montage of what he sees and his reactions. This is not a quiet moment, but he isn't talking, the scene allows the audience to drink in the atmosphere. However the cantina in Force Awakens is a hodge-podge of chaos that you just can't get a good mental image of because of how the scene cuts about all over the place.

And whilst Star Wars is about good vs evil, it is not a simple film. Lord of the Rings is a simple story about good vs evil. It is the archetypal fantasy good vs evil story. Star Wars though is about emotions. It is not just good vs evil. It is a heroes journey in the most classical sense. It is a send up to Flash Gordon. Akira Kurosawa (hence why Vader wears a Samurai's Kabuto on his helmet). It is a space opera that says good and evil are not so far away from one-another, and preaches eastern philosophies of animism and mindfulness.

Force Awakens has none of that. The Force is just a thing in the film and is only described in a throw-away line.

I am interested in Ren too, but he was undoubtedly wasted and mis-handled as a character.

The film is a really wasted opportunity, and what is there is undermined by myriad fundamental flaws.