GRcade

Revenge of the Sith was the first Star Wars film I ever watched so there's a bit of nostalgia there.

Back to the Star Wars Marathon.

Solo: A Star Wars Story 6/10
Solid and entertaining spin-off film, the guy did a decent enough job. But Donald Glover was brilliant as Lando, really hope we see more of him.Maybe in a Disney + series?

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 9.5/10
Pretty much as close as you could get to the classic trilogy you can get. Great cast and each of them are well written, many iconic moments and such a huge love letter to fans of the original trilogy.

imbusydoctorwho wrote:Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 9.5/10
Pretty much as close as you could get to the classic trilogy you can get. Great cast and each of them are well written, many iconic moments and such a huge love letter to fans of the original trilogy.

imbusydoctorwho wrote:Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 9.5/10
Great cast and each of them are well written

can you name them all
I sure as strawberry float can't name even one of them

VlaSoul wrote:

imbusydoctorwho wrote:Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 9.5/10
Great cast and each of them are well written

can you name them all
I sure as strawberry float can't name even one of them

This is exactly what I asked my friends after they were going on about how brilliant the film was. I think they named Jyn, and then we got to the droid, the blind guy, the blind guy's bodyguard territory

The last 45 minutes to an hour is really entertaining, but the film feels like a bit of a mess up until that point.

sawyerpip wrote:

VlaSoul wrote:

imbusydoctorwho wrote:Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 9.5/10
Great cast and each of them are well written

can you name them all
I sure as strawberry float can't name even one of them

This is exactly what I asked my friends after they were going on about how brilliant the film was. I think they named Jyn, and then we got to the droid, the blind guy, the blind guy's bodyguard territory

don't forget about the white guy with the funny accent

sawyerpip wrote:The last 45 minutes to an hour is really entertaining, but the film feels like a bit of a mess up until that point.

Yeah the action is generally pretty solid and the rebels doing gooseberry fool did feel kind of like ANH, but the war scenes seemed out of place for what star wars is. Also what dumbass brought out the big metal camel guys over sand and islands; war machines that big would just sink.

Hobbit - 'Tolkien' Fan Edit 7.5/10
Fellowship, Extended 8/10
Two Towers Extended 9/10
Return of the King Extended 9/10

I'd only seen the first half of the first Hobbit film before, and this fan edit condenses the 3 films down into a 4 hour package and its quite good. I lose a bit of interest around the 4th fifth, in the town, but it doesn't totally ruin it.

Fellowship - mostly great, but I find it lags a little bit after Moria.

Two Towers - Since all the set up is done in fellowship it's really able to expand on the characters, themes and stories brilliantly and give them plenty of time to develop. While fellowship was more concentrated and linear, TT expanding out in multiple stories really helps with the scale and sense of how high the stakes are.

Return of the King - Just a satisfying and fully realised continuation and resolution of all the threads.

VlaSoul wrote:

imbusydoctorwho wrote:Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 9.5/10
Great cast and each of them are well written

can you name them all
I sure as strawberry float can't name even one of them

Absolutely. Felicity Jones, Robo-Tudyk... Diego Luna, erm...Donnie Yen, Riz Ahmed and Ben Mendehlson.

Poor Forest Whitaker and Mads Mikkelsen.

Forest Whitaker's turn as Saw Gerrara is off the charts and the second best thing in the film (after the battle of Scarif). That Bor Gullet sequence is strawberry floating hilarious.

VlaSoul wrote:but the war scenes seemed out of place for what star wars is.

It's called Star Wars because there are wars taking place.

These characters aren't easily nameable because they haven't entered into popular culture like the characters from the original trilogy. Try naming the characters from any great film of the last ten years. I bet you can't tell me the lead characters name in, say, Interstellar. Doesn't mean they're badly written.

MURPH

I can never remember the names of any characters in both games or films

My mates are like "what did you think of when Djern Berfretnik tracked down Majosie wofflegronk in act 4 scene 3?"

U wot m8.

more heat than light wrote:These characters aren't easily nameable because they haven't entered into popular culture like the characters from the original trilogy. Try naming the characters from any great film of the last ten years. I bet you can't tell me the lead characters name in, say, Interstellar. Doesn't mean they're badly written.

Exactly.

I couldn't name any of the characters in Citizen Kane (other than the title character), I guess that means it has worse characters than Attack of the Clones.

Moggy wrote:

more heat than light wrote:These characters aren't easily nameable because they haven't entered into popular culture like the characters from the original trilogy. Try naming the characters from any great film of the last ten years. I bet you can't tell me the lead characters name in, say, Interstellar. Doesn't mean they're badly written.

Exactly.

I couldn't name any of the characters in Citizen Kane (other than the title character), I guess that means it has worse characters than Attack of the Clones.

The main character in Interstellar is Cooper Although full disclosure I watched it on TV only a couple of weeks ago.

Although this is a fair point, I'm talking about a conversation I had only days after we had all seen the film where I would expect some of us to remember their names. I actually enjoyed the film overall but I think to say it has well written characters is a bit of a stretch.

Me: That film had some great characters in it!
My friend of 10 years: Oh yeah? Name any of them!
Me, not even knowing my friend's name because it got too awkward to ask: Majosie wofflegronk?

sawyerpip wrote:

Moggy wrote:

more heat than light wrote:These characters aren't easily nameable because they haven't entered into popular culture like the characters from the original trilogy. Try naming the characters from any great film of the last ten years. I bet you can't tell me the lead characters name in, say, Interstellar. Doesn't mean they're badly written.

Exactly.

I couldn't name any of the characters in Citizen Kane (other than the title character), I guess that means it has worse characters than Attack of the Clones.

The main character in Interstellar is Cooper Although full disclosure I watched it on TV only a couple of weeks ago.

Although this is a fair point, I'm talking about a conversation I had only days after we had all seen the film where I would expect some of us to remember their names. I actually enjoyed the film overall but I think to say it has well written characters is a bit of a stretch.

It's fine to say you don't think the characters are well written. But the "name the main characters" argument doesn't work.

more heat than light wrote:These characters aren't easily nameable because they haven't entered into popular culture like the characters from the original trilogy. Try naming the characters from any great film of the last ten years. I bet you can't tell me the lead characters name in, say, Interstellar. Doesn't mean they're badly written.

I've made at least five posts in this thread referencing how much I dislike interstellar

My point with the rogue one mans is that they're not memorable. As well as not being able to remember their names, I find it hard to define their characters. The robot maybe I can describe as snarky and idk like sardonic; can't really do the same for the other characters outside of the generic descriptor of "rebel". Before it was mentioned here I forgot that Mads and Forest Whitaker were even in that film.

Citing Interstellar is an odd one there - a film where the characters are badly written and I also can't remember their names

How can anyone forget Dr Mann?