Judith on 2/9/2018 at 09:33
Quote:
When we saw that they're getting rich selling weapons to both sides... well, I think some people must simply not like flesh put onto the bones of their simplistic good guys versus bad guys drama.
It might have some sense if SW was some deep, thought-provoking series, or if that casino sequence had something interesting or original to say.
Starker on 2/9/2018 at 13:18
Exactly -- Star Wars was pulpy sci-fi, mixed with samurai movies that were no more complex. The root of Star Wars is not The Day the Earth Stood Still, it's Flash Gordon and the like. And that means simple stories with simple, uncomplicated, iconic characters to the point of being cartoonish -- Luke is the plucky idealistic hero, Han is the lovable rogue, Obi Wan and Yoda are the wise old masters who are embodiments of their code, etc. And of course this doesn't mean a character can't have an arc, it just means keep it simple, stupid. And more show not tell than usual.
PigLick on 2/9/2018 at 13:20
and then we never talked about Star Wars ever again
PigLick on 2/9/2018 at 13:21
please?
SubJeff on 2/9/2018 at 14:31
Upstream Color.
Now that's some quality sci-fi.
I'll add Arrival. That was tremendous.
When are we getting some more original, but GOOD, sci-fi.
New Dune don't count. The recent Netflix efforts have been crud.
Sulphur on 2/9/2018 at 15:14
Okay, imma be that guy. Star Wars isn't sci-fi, or at least what conventional sci-fi is traditionally accepted as: stories utilising technology to conform to at least some level of plausibility. It's a retheming of a traditional fantasy framework in space, so: science fantasy.
Upstream Colour technically fits the sci-fi bill, I guess, because magical empathic organism with weird lifecycle, but it's really just using that as a framework to tell a story about emotions.
If you want good motion picture sci-fi, I can't think of anything smart yet entertaining that fits the bill that was released in the past year. Except Annihilation, which was interesting yet in hindsight I'd appraise it as weirdly good, but not completely successful in its technicolor ambitions.
ZylonBane on 2/9/2018 at 17:07
Quote Posted by Starker
Exactly -- Star Wars was pulpy sci-fi, mixed with samurai movies that were no more complex.
You don't need to describe it, there's already a commonly accepted term for what Star Wars is: space opera.
SubJeff on 3/9/2018 at 00:04
Use the exact right words people, lest thou summon him.
Yes, that was rather good.
Gingerbread Man on 3/9/2018 at 01:19
I have concerns about the inclusion of well-known actors like Richard E Grant. Okay, the other one is not-well-known actor Keri Russell. But I'm worried that what little suspension of disbelief / sense of wonder / nostalgia for 1979 will be destroyed by the sudden appearance of Simon Marchmont / Withnail -- I didn't like it when he showed up in Game of Thrones, I didn't like it when he showed up on Frasier. He's far too iconic an actor to make me confident that the illusion of "Long ago" and "Galaxy far away" will continue to uphold for me. Maybe I'm being silly. I probably am. (I mean, I CERTAINLY am in the Grand Scheme, but on my own personal level I don't know)
Yes there are other Brand Names, but for me Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams... these are all people I associate first and foremost with their Star Wars characters, so it's not an issue. But Richard E Grant in particular is like having Christopher Walken in it.
Starker on 3/9/2018 at 02:04
Quote Posted by Sulphur
what conventional sci-fi is traditionally accepted as
As far as I'm concerned, if it has robots in it, it's sci-fi. Well, unless it's one of those industrial robots that assembles cars or something.
In any case, it's not easy to draw a distinction between sci-fi and science fantasy. Even something like Star Trek has some supernatural and implausible elements in it. Not to mention that when you look at genres as labels, rather than exclusionary boxes, the fantasy elements don't stop Star Wars from being sci-fi.
