"The Force Awakens" is the WORST movie of all time

[Mirror Image]

Nice skin, smooth like an hardboiled egg with the shells removed
I think part of the reason we like her is that like Jennifer Aniston she has (or had) that girl next door attainable look...yet for all practical purposes she was so far out of our league that we couldn't even see the playing field

Indeed. She does have that certainly quality (girl next door look as you say). Out of my league? Hmmm...I don't think so, more like in 'a galaxy far, far away' out of my league is more like it.

[Marc]

Indeed. She does have that certainly quality (girl next door look as you say). Out of my league? Hmmm...I don't think so, more like in 'a galaxy far, far away' out of my league is more like it.

I bet she was good fun for a night out though, in whatever galaxy.

Let's hope Carrie is happy now, being reunited with her mother, Debbie Reynolds, who died today.
From a broken heart.



No script writer would dare to write such a story. Real life beats fiction again, yet in a very sad way.

Rest In Peace, Debbie Reynolds.



EDIT: apologies for being so far off-topic.

[Karl Henning]

Star Wars is one the largest popular culture phenomenon of the last 50 years. Pretty well done with lousy writing...

Agreed.

Thank you for conceding that the fact of its being a grand pop culture event doesn't make the writing somehow "good."

[71 dB]

Agreed.

Thank you for conceding that the fact of its being a grand pop culture event doesn't make the writing somehow "good."

Well, what is good writing? Shakespeare? Lucas' writing is good, just in a different way. Lucas simplifies things on screen, but the background is complex. Characters and places have a history etc. Lucas knows what is relevant for viewers. Anyway, I don't care what you think. Keep reading your good writing all you want.

[Jo498]

I am pretty confident that there are people writing theses on why particular pop culture phenomena arise and sometimes remain fairly stable in popularity for decades despite not being very good. And some of them might even have plausible theories how this happens. (As a traditionalist highbrow snob I am not at all surprised at the fact itself while I can hardly claim to understand the particular mechanisms...). It is only going to be 40 years next year and I am also pretty sure that not many cared about Star Wars between ca. 1986 and 1996.

I am slightly too young to have been allowed to watch "Return of the Jedi" in the theater (I was 11 and my parents were rather restrictive and also did not at all care for SciFi) and I was not much more than mildly amused when I saw the original trilogy on TV or video in the mid-1990s when I was in my 20s. And I don't remember Star Wars being prominent in the hiatus between 1983 and 1999 although of course everyone was somewhat familiar with it.

[Karl Henning]

Well, what is good writing? Shakespeare? Lucas' writing is good, just in a different way. Lucas simplifies things on screen, but the background is complex. Characters and places have a history etc. Lucas knows what is relevant for viewers. Anyway, I don't care what you think. Keep reading your good writing all you want.

And anyway, by your reasoning, your opinion means nothing, so . . . .

Viz. "characters have a history," one of the ways in which Lucas's writing is iconically vapid, is his eminently efficient "he just writes the line which his story needs at that point, and has whatever character speak it"

https://www.youtube.com/v/m0TGcvtzjUs

[Karl Henning]

I am pretty confident that there are people writing theses on why particular pop culture phenomena arise and sometimes remain fairly stable in popularity for decades despite not being very good. And some of them might even have plausible theories how this happens. (As a traditionalist highbrow snob I am not at all surprised at the fact itself while I can hardly claim to understand the particular mechanisms...). It is only going to be 40 years next year and I am also pretty sure that not many cared about Star Wars between ca. 1986 and 1996.

Indeed!

I've made this point before, but one respect in which Lucas did the public and the movie industry a real service (the quality of this or that element in his work notwithstanding) is, that Star Wars reminded people that it was okay to go to the movies just for a good time.


And two years later, The In-Laws did so, with with wit, intelligence, and yet . . . no special effects (apart from hand-puppeteering).  That was good writing.

[Mirror Image]

Anyway, I don't care what you think. Keep reading your good writing all you want.

By the same token, we should care what you think? There's absolutely no need for that kind of attitude, Poju. Everybody is entitled to their opinion no matter how unjust you may find it.

[Karl Henning]

The Simpsons had a devastating satire on The Phantom Menace and the great disappointment felt by all:

https://www.youtube.com/v/3lPG1u6EbiY

I've not been a fan of The Simpsons, but this could change all that 

[Cato]

I've not been a fan of The Simpsons, but this could change all that 

I have not watched it in years, but this one I recall as being right on target! 

[Mirror Image]

I have not watched it in years, but this one I recall as being right on target! 

Agreed. I didn't think much of any of the prequels.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Indeed!

I've made this point before, but one respect in which Lucas did the public and the movie industry a real service (the quality of this or that element in his work notwithstanding) is, that Star Wars reminded people that it was okay to go to the movies just for a good time.

I might be a minority but I don't even think any of the Star Wars movies outside of the Phantom Menace are actually any fun.

The original ones are really corny, the acting phony and contrived, fight scenes laughable and amateurish. The whirling Jedi swords, gimme a break.

The new ones feature H. Christensen and N. Portman as total miscasts with zero chemistry between them and even worst dialogue and fight scenes than the original.

Just a real chore to watch any of them.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Indeed. She does have that certainly quality (girl next door look as you say). Out of my league? Hmmm...I don't think so, more like in 'a galaxy far, far away' out of my league is more like it.

Yes then there is this one where one look and you know you have no shot at her:

[Todd]

And some of them might even have plausible theories how this happens.

Easy: Good marketing.  Now that Disney has taken over, the Star Wars brand will be marketed more relentlessly than under Lucas.  The movies appear set to be huge for at least the next four or five years, and longer if Disney keeps cranking out product.

[Jo498]

I tend to suspend judgement on the old ones (have not seen any of the others and probably never will) because I am not sufficiently familiar with other SciFi movies from the late 1970s/early 80s. And the somewhat contemporary first Neverending Story movie was a huge disappointment when I saw it with 11 or so as the book had been a great favorite and the movie did not capture any of the magic - as I should have known had I been but a little older/smarter: A book mainly about books and stories that drew part of its attraction from the self-referential idea that the actual reader was holding the very book the story was about will hardly make a good movie.
I guess I thought that the corniness was either part of the fun or not as bad as a typical SciFi movie of that time...

[Jo498]

Easy: Good marketing.  Now that Disney has taken over, the Star Wars brand will be marketed more relentlessly than under Lucas.  The movies appear set to be huge for at least the next four or five years, and longer if Disney keeps cranking out product.

Sure. But I doubt that the marketing machine was so perfect and powerful ca. 40 years ago and there must be both reasons for the immense popularity of the first batch back then as well as for the 16 year hiatus after 1983. (For James Bond movies it was only 6 years but in my impression almost everyone in the early 1990s had thought Bond was gone for good before he returned in Goldeneye.)

Marketing is important but I tend to believe that the most successful marketing taps into certain trends/desires/fantasies that are "in the air". I am largely ignorant of this but weren't there some spectacular failures with superman movies in the 80s or so. And despite several successful Batman movies hardly anyone would 1995 have predicted a huge success for comic book heroes in the 2000s.

[Todd]

Sure. But I doubt that the marketing machine was so perfect and powerful ca. 40 years ago and there must be both reasons for the immense popularity of the first batch back then as well as for the 16 year hiatus after 1983.

There was comparatively little marketing for the first film pre-release, but quite a lot thereafter, at least in the US, and Lucas was shrewd enough to negotiate merchandising rights.  Before The Empire Strikes Back came out, there were many ads and, importantly, new toys and books and comic books.  Lucasfilm never stopped selling toys and other paraphernalia.  Before the prequels, Lucas updated the first three films and rereleased them theatrically in 1997 with a lot of advertising both for the films and the upcoming movies (and the original movie cracked the top ten at the box office for the year), and new merchandise was introduced before the new films.  Marketing has been a major part of the Star Wars phenomenon almost all along.  Other film/film franchises have been huge but had a shorter lifespan - eg, Jaws (which did spawn some awful sequels), ET, Titanic, and cultural touchstone flicks from prior decades (eg, The Ten Commandments) - because either they were more adult oriented or because they lacked sufficient follow-up marketing.  Disney has long been a master of repackaging product.  They keep reissuing films from the 40s forward, with new marketing angles, and they keep making money.  They are going to do the same thing with Star Wars. 

The superhero phenomenon is similar.  One major reason they are so popular now as movies is largely reliant upon marketing, and they are also reliant on foreign markets like never before.  Superheroes generally appeal to a lot of people - good guys and bad guys - and can easily translate to different cultures for that reason, but this is supported by many of the same marketing ploys that Lucas was the first to perfect.  It's a bit hard to envision Ant-Man making a half billion in revenue globally without massive marketing campaigns.

[71 dB]

I have been sick for several days now and that's why I am not very friendly. Thread about Star Wars always make me angry. I should stay away.

[Jo498]

I don't disagree. But I still think that there has to be a "spark" before the marketing can take over. Why did the later Superman sequels in the 1980s fail, why did nobody think about making superhero movies in the 1990s except for Batman?
Maybe it is also special effects that became much better in the 2000s. But even with the successful Batman in the 1990s and the Spiderman movies around 2000 I would never have guessed that such a proliferation of comic book based movies would follow and be (mostly) successful. As I said, I am not quite following that stuff but my impression in the 1990s was that more "realistic" action movies, like "Die hard" or odd mixtures between irony and brutality à la Tarantino had taken over etc.

[Todd]

But even with the successful Batman in the 1990s and the Spiderman movies around 2000 I would never have guessed that such a proliferation of comic book based movies would follow and be (mostly) successful.

Part of it is that Disney hadn't entered the space with a coherent plan.  Disney dominates the super-hero movie realm now after buying Marvel in 2009.  The cross-movie marketing and interweaving storylines are products designed to put butts in seats, generate toy and other merchandise sales, and generate new attractions at theme parks.  All of the product and experience offerings are explicitly designed to reinforce each other, and all available revenue figures show that they do so very well.

Superhero movies have been on and off things for decades, but the current glut is driven by corporate marketing and profit seeking.  And Disney is very good at it.  Bob Iger is a kick-ass manager and has earned his millions.  The top four movies globally this year are from Disney, and six of the top eleven are.  Not all superhero movies are from Disney - the DC comics are created by different studios - but those are reliant upon the same techniques (eg, Batman vs Superman introduced Wonder Woman, the Flash, and Aquaman) and benefit from goodwill spillover.  It's a formula now.