Lit A/V The Force Awakens and the EU [TAGGED spoilers.]

Speaking of spoiler-free (or mildly spoilery and seeing another trailer infront of Avengers)

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/2/7...trailer-is-coming-with-avengers-age-of-ultron

I pretty much expected this. In fact, I am guessing there will be three in all. The teaser. An Avengers-bundled trailer. And a "fall" trailer (which would probably be very plot heavy like most close-to-release trailers) I'm assuming, and hoping, the Avengers trailer will be about as abstract as this last one but actually show Luke, Leia or Han in it. The hypothetical "third" trailer, I would assume would probably be very detailed and specific about how the movie plays out. Gonna try to avoid that one. I mean, I highly doubt a "final" trailer will be done by May and that's the last one ever. There will probably be a third.

 

Yeah I've watched the prequel trailers recently... They spoil a lot. I was right in avoiding them (not the teasers, hehe) and I have as my purpose for 2015 to stop checking this thread and makingstarwars.net so I can go fairly unspoiled into TFA.

 

I'm still banking the really-probable "Avengers" trailer will be about as abstract as this "teaser" was. But Plus Big Three. I think they'll go full-on plot beat by beat in the hypothetical "third" trailer which would be in the fall.

Most blockbusters get a teaser and a trailer but since this is Star Wars (and our "first look" was over a year out) I think it's really likely we'll get three.

 

I think this is needed around these parts. Not HERE-here, but... like... the Episode VII forum, for sure...

http://prolost.com/blog/opinion

This perfectly explains my position on the shakycam. I can gladly explain why it doesn't work for me, but I hardly think I'm entitled to it. For me, it's more about putting a finger on where it comes from, and over the years I've learned that's what good criticism is: Analysis, comparing and contrasting something to an ideal retrospective state, but more examining why a choice was made than whether it's right or wrong.

 

Films are the filmmakers' business, and if the unwashed masses disagree with the director's choices, they can either not see the film or shut their bloody traps. But I am a classicist, and don't believe that creators' opinions have too large a space in which they are allowed to be expressed. Not that this really applies in the case of Star Wars, which I am sure will fit the mold (we ain't exactly talking low budget here). But the assertion that what the filmmaker thinks is right is right, is false. There are rules to which the filmmaker is subject.

 

So are the handheld shots in ANH and ROTJ unacceptable?

They're not at Greengrass levels of obfuscation, but they're not far off anything featured in the teaser. Or is it really just the upside-down shot that has no precedent in the previous features... except for the opening shot of one of the films.

 

Anime adaptation of TFA confirmed!

 

I think you missed the point of the article. The point is, a reaction is not as valuable as an opinion, and while you're entitled to a negative reaction, opinions are only a part of the creative process. When we offer our opinions as an audience, it's not like we're talking about the effect the film is having on the world and whether or not it should be buried and never opened again... we're just talking about our reactions, which ultimately have very little value.

For instance, you said yourself that you are a classicist, and therein lies the issue: You are a classicist, but not every filmmaker is. I'm sure you're not so unreasonable as to say that every filmmaker should be a classicist, but it's simply a statement of where you are coming from, and that means your reactions are still only relative to your own view... putting you into a position where you're only left with a reaction, and you can't do a lot with that. When people use their reactions as a justification for entitlement (i.e. as Bill Corbett tweeted, "hilt on light saber stupid and impractical childhood ruined everything ruined!!!1!"), it's like walking into a Maserati dealership and trying to buy a car with a dollar bill. Possible? Sure, give it a shot. But ultimately... heheh. You know. Yes, it's possible to fail creatively, but the mistake most of the internet makes nowadays is thinking that a creative decision is inherently right or wrong. If that were possible, film would never have progressed past Citizen Kane.

I think the point of the article also skates slightly into a recommendation to go the other way and just try to absorb it. Absorb other peoples' opinions whether you like them or not, which is what you're doing when you take in a movie you don't necessarily love, but can afford to think about where it comes from before losing your ****. Can everybody do that? Not necessarily---I have a hard time with it---but I can certainly agree that it makes you a cooler, wiser person if you can.

 

There are useful reactions and there are worthless opinions.

Opinions based on logic and formed as a result of analysis have more worth than opinions based on, say, the need to conform, or habit. And the reactions of smart, experienced, sensitive people have more worth than the reactions of stupid, inexperienced and insensitive people. (The reaction of someone who can explain why he or she likes or dislikes something is worth something; the reaction "hilt on light saber stupid and impractical childhood ruined everything ruined!!!1!" is worth nothing beyond its comedic value.) It's good to understand where others are coming from, but there are cases where that is just a waste of time.

 

Let us all just agree that any opinion not supported by the Glove of Darth Vader is an invalid opinion.

 

But even that is subjective.

And that value... Explain precisely what that is. What does it earn, and what does it create?

If its value is that it teaches you what to do or what not to do in your own creative pursuits, that could be good, or it could be reactionary; it's value-neutral.

If its value is that you think it guides creators to do something more in line with what you want, that's simply a myth. As the article points out, JJ Abrams didn't rethink his position on lens flares because people complained to him about them; he reevaluated his own work---as he would have done along the way whether anyone told him to or not---and his opinion changed based on a series of other new opinions. Or, as Nic Pizzolatto put it in an interview (paraphrasing) "I'm not in the service industry. I make the TV I want to make and the TV I believe in, and I don't say, 'Is your TV good? Do you want something else? Oh, you don't like that? OK, let me go get you something else!' You might think that's what you want from me, but when I gave you what you thought you wanted, you wouldn't actually like it." Movies like Star Wars necessitate a more collaborative approach, but the notion of personal belief still stands.

You must realize, you can only get away with saying "I have a right to my opinion that this should have been done differently" because audiences outnumber creators. You only believe in that principle because you're a part of the audience. Objectively, that ideology isn't a difficult one to adopt; it's self-aggrandizing and has very little actual value, but it's agreed upon because so many other people find it that easy to adopt. Analysis is one thing, but opinions of right and wrong in creative output are based on an imaginary foundation. A reaction, on the other hand, is the real treat: You get to see how certain themes and stories interact with a person's DNA. That's spoiled when it becomes overly absolute.

 

How do Ratings (which seem to be quite an influence on TV) fit into the above, please?

 

I would say the value of an informed opinion lies in presenting an example. One can look to the opinions of people wiser than oneself to get closer to objectivity (without, of course, ever hoping to get close).

There is no "right" and "wrong" in art; I never said there is. The concept of right and wrong applies only in cases of rights violations, and however violated I may feel after watching a Haneke film, I cannot claim it is wrong for it to exist, for it is a voluntary enterprise, and since some people like his stuff a lot, he must be doing something right on some level I will never reach or descend down to, whichever may be the case. And there is no objective "good" or "bad" either. But it is important to distinguish that, when criticizing a work, some people know what they are talking about and make good points, while others are talking out of their rectal cavities. While it's always best to ignore the very existence of the latter, the people who know what they are talking about and make good points may have captured some phantasmal kernel of objectivity, and it's a good idea to listen to them. What you say about absorbing a film applies also to film criticism.

 

I don't think it has to be either or. Creative intent and audience reaction/perception both have a place and both have value.

 

Spoiler

They're all spoof Easter eggs, though, aren't they?

 

I would trust a random drunk guy in a pub more than Latino Review.

 

You say "crackpot rumor" as if that weren't entertaining.

Here's one of the many articles that ate up that one list of information that is of course probably not true, but as I said, with a Revan connection in the air and a Revan expansion out there, the rumour should get a second spring in crackpot heaven!

 

well said

 

The one thing that did come to mind when reading that article was that I always thought it was weird that the story group would be that heavily involved in an expansion for an MMO, especially one that they must have known by then would be de-canonized soon. Though I guess that was just early enough that they really didn't have anything else to do.

 

Not at all. Even if we reduced the definition of good television to critically-acclaimed television, ratings rarely indicate the most critically-acclaimed show.

That's what I'm saying, but I'm philosophizing along with that article about what mental path you must navigate to reach an honest understanding of a piece of entertainment. Absorbing doesn't just mean loving; I think the optimal way of viewing a film is one of the themes Fellini addresses in 8 1/2: For criticism and analysis to matter, the first question you must ask yourself is not "is this a good film?" but instead "do I like this film?" That's the difference between opinion and reaction. I'm of the opinion that, for instance, The Brothers Bloom is not a great film, but I react to it adoringly. The point is, most people don't know how to separate that. I think you think you're disagreeing with that article (perhaps because it defends something you disagree with, I'm not sure), when in fact it's trying to get people to consider one of the things you and I agree on here. It's just that, for me, reaction is more fascinating. I can understand and opine on my own and that's the only opinion I really care about, but reaction is the thing which is unique to the beholder.

 

In general, when I go to the movies, I try not to have an opinion (if the film is thought-provoking, I usually form one afterwards). That's why I try to stay away from movies where I get the feeling (from the director's previous works, trailer, previews, etc) I would never be able to react honestly to the drama because it's intertwined with things I can't stand. That way, I generally react positively to most films I watch. It's not that I'm good at absorbing films; it's that I have mastered the art of distinguishing which films agree with my constitution.