Star Wars: The Force Awakens reviews *SPOILERS*

[Eug]

...and I assume you would rate it more poorly today?

About the same. Maybe 2 to 2.5.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I have seen the 3D version yesterday. It was very similar in concept as the original first three episodes. But since it is always a struggle between the dark sideusers and the light side users of the force... I love it.

The only mistake they made is the same as with avatar 3D. In a 3D view, the human eyes move around to track and focus. So, virtually all objects are in focus in our minds.
So, when two people talk and the camera moves and shifts between two persons all the time, the persons should not alternately get out of focus . They should use 2 cameras for such scenes and combine the sharp images digitally.

 

[Eug]

^^^ I'm not sure I buy your reasoning but regardless, Star Wars was not shot as a 3D movie. It was shot in 2D and converted, which is yet another reason I think its 3D release was stupid from an audience member's perspective. From a business perspective it was a smart move though since people will still pay to see it in 3D even though it costs more.

 

[Linux23]

Really? I thought they shot in 3d.

 

[William Gaatjes]

^^^ I'm not sure I buy your reasoning but regardless, Star Wars was not shot as a 3D movie. It was shot in 2D and converted, which is yet another reason I think its 3D release was stupid from an audience member's perspective. From a business perspective it was a smart move though since people will still pay to see it in 3D even though it costs more.

Well, the screen is big enough, that the fovea in the retina of the eye, cannot get a sharp image of both characters.
That means that when we look to a different position of the screen even with a 3D effect, our eyes seem to adjust. Of course, our brain is not that fooled easily when it comes to depth. Because we see depth, but our eyes do not need to refocus. But there is some triangulation and focusing going on since the screen is so big. Just not enough to fool the brain completely.

In reality, when you look at two persons at once that both are a meter apart in distance from you, they look sharp when you look casually with centered vision but not when you try to look from the corner of your eye to one while keeping centered vision on the other.

Hence why the current 3d effect gives sometimes a feeling of looking through a window in a submarine or through a window in a space ship. There is spatial depth(especially when spaceships fly by), we are just not part of it.

That is what i mean with the two characters in the beginning(Poe Dameron and Lor San Tekka), the constant refocusing between the two characters that are at different distances from the camera kills the 3d effect.

 

[ViRGE]

Really? I thought they shot in 3d.

Very rarely are major films shot in 3D. It requires very different camerawork.

http://realorfake3d.com/

 

[KeithTalent]

^^^ I'm not sure I buy your reasoning but regardless, Star Wars was not shot as a 3D movie. It was shot in 2D and converted, which is yet another reason I think its 3D release was stupid from an audience member's perspective. From a business perspective it was a smart move though since people will still pay to see it in 3D even though it costs more.

Well we are also not given much of a choice, which is the worst part of it. There are 12 showings today of SW:TFA at the theatre nearest me and only 2 of them are not in 3D. So you need to squeeze into those two showtimes, otherwise it's 3D for you. So annoying.

KT

 

[ViRGE]

Well we are also not given much of a choice, which is the worst part of it. There are 12 showings today of SW:TFA at the theatre nearest me and only 2 of them are not in 3D. So you need to squeeze into those two showtimes, otherwise it's 3D for you. So annoying.

KT

And that is why I own 2D glasses: for those times when you absolutely can't get a 2D showing (such as HFR Hobbit).

 

[destrekor]

And that is why I own 2D glasses: for those times when you absolutely can't get a 2D showing (such as HFR Hobbit).

I still wish I had seen the HFR Hobbit showing. I had, and still have no real desire to see the movies, but I really wanted to see what 48fps film looked like compared go artificial high framerate techniques.

But I would say going 2D only I'd a disservice to the HFR showing. A) you might as well just see the regular 2D film, as the HFR is going to do nothing when you block one perspective; and B) it was filmed in 3D, so, well, the same argument applies. I won't bother with post-converted 3D, but I definitely want to see native-3D films as it is usually great. And especially for HFR 3D, as it is supposed to help address some of the issues seen with 24fps 3D.

 

[ViRGE]

I still wish I had seen the HFR Hobbit showing. I had, and still have no real desire to see the movies, but I really wanted to see what 48fps film looked like compared go artificial high framerate techniques.

But I would say going 2D only I'd a disservice to the HFR showing. A) you might as well just see the regular 2D film, as the HFR is going to do nothing when you block one perspective; and B) it was filmed in 3D, so, well, the same argument applies. I won't bother with post-converted 3D, but I definitely want to see native-3D films as it is usually great. And especially for HFR 3D, as it is supposed to help address some of the issues seen with 24fps 3D.

HFR is recorded at 48fps for each eye (you need simultaneous frames for each eye for 3D). So using 2D glasses does not reduce the framerate at all.

 

[KeithTalent]

And that is why I own 2D glasses: for those times when you absolutely can't get a 2D showing (such as HFR Hobbit).

Are those things for real? That's awesome if they work.


By the way, just saw the movie and thought it was awful. Had a hard time staying awake. 2nd worst of the entire series (only ahead of Episode 2) for me. A shame, I was really hoping for something fun and exciting.

KT

 

[Ichinisan]

Are those things for real? That's awesome if they work.


By the way, just saw the movie and thought it was awful. Had a hard time staying awake. 2nd worst of the entire series (only ahead of Episode 2) for me. A shame, I was really hoping for something fun and exciting.

KT

I was sad that I did not like the movie or enjoy watching it. I really wanted to like it, but ultimately could not.

 

[KeithTalent]

I was sad that I did not like the movie or enjoy watching it. I really wanted to like it, but ultimately could not.

Yeah, me too. Was so excited just before it started. Then just bored and sad after that.

KT

 

[Sonikku]

I walked out hardly believing the realization that I didn't enjoy it. That moment when you follow every molecule of info and tidbits only to wait the three hours, see the movie and walk out realizing none of it was worth it. I enjoyed Mad Max a hell of a lot more than this movie and I was expecting that one to be bad going in. Go figure.

 

[Franz316]

I walked out hardly believing the realization that I didn't enjoy it. That moment when you follow every molecule of info and tidbits only to wait the three hours, see the movie and walk out realizing none of it was worth it. I enjoyed Mad Max a hell of a lot more than this movie and I was expecting that one to be bad going in. Go figure.

That's because TFA is basically a high budget fanfilm that completely destroys the ending of ROTJ and turns the characters we love into failures. Not to mention the ridiculous rehashed plot that somehow made it through every revision.

 

[bbhaag]

I didn't think it was that bad. Not great but ok. I mean I'm in my mid thirties so the SW thing is wearing a little thin.

You know who really liked it though. My 8 and 13 yo sons. They could not get enough of that movie. They saw it when it came out then saw it again and they are still talking about it. Not quit as much now but every few days it comes up...

 

[KeithTalent]

I didn't think it was that bad. Not great but ok. I mean I'm in my mid thirties so the SW thing is wearing a little thin.

You know who really liked it though. My 8 and 13 yo sons. They could not get enough of that movie. They saw it when it came out then saw it again and they are still talking about it. Not quit as much now but every few days it comes up...

Yeah, it's pretty much a kids movie, so that makes sense. It's cool, glad kids are loving it, but it was not for me in the slightest.

KT

 

[Sephire]

Mark Hamill: “George has talked to me marginally about doing something at the turn of the century in the last trilogy but it wouldn’t be on the same plane of existence, if you know what I mean.”​

Gene Siskel: “What it sounds like is he offered you a job to play a father of Luke Junior around the year 2000.”​

Mark Hamill: “You’re a very clever man Mr. Siskel.”​

Gene Siskel: “So first it looks like there’s gonna be a set of three more Star Wars movies that take place before the three we’ve seen, and then at the end of the century three more ending with Luke becoming a father. That’s the Star Wars experience.”​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8_2rzOvPDs​

 

[bbhaag]

Yeah, it's pretty much a kids movie, so that makes sense. It's cool, glad kids are loving it, but it was not for me in the slightest.

KT

Yeah...It sucks getting old doesn't it. The rose colored glasses of childhood are nice but eventually we have to take them off.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Mark Hamill: “George has talked to me marginally about doing something at the turn of the century in the last trilogy but it wouldn’t be on the same plane of existence, if you know what I mean.”​

Gene Siskel: “What it sounds like is he offered you a job to play a father of Luke Junior around the year 2000.”​

Mark Hamill: “You’re a very clever man Mr. Siskel.”​

Gene Siskel: “So first it looks like there’s gonna be a set of three more Star Wars movies that take place before the three we’ve seen, and then at the end of the century three more ending with Luke becoming a father. That’s the Star Wars experience.”​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8_2rzOvPDs​

Just watching a little part of that old starwars movie showed the ambience of the original movies. I agree that has changed over the years. But it has done so with all movies.

I guess it is part of growing up or it is something more sinister.
But it seems that evil (such as for example darth vader) seems to have become something that shows itself as more friendly.
As a kid, we are grasped more by the movie, as we age, our brains get wired differently. And we become less easily to scare or to be on our toes.

I do find it amazing how George Lucas and studios did those special effects for those movies at that time. Must have been a lot of hard work.

I also like it more when there is less green screen and more acting in a "real" setting. Gives the actors something to relate to.
But i guess is is more expensive than green screen.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Yeah...It sucks getting old doesn't it. The rose colored glasses of childhood are nice but eventually we have to take them off.

And yet millions of adults loved the original trilogy when it was released. Critics loved it, etc. So I think it was a failure of the franchise to make the Force Awakens as a universally loved film for kids as well as adults like the original trilogy was.

You look at the Marvel films and their appeal across generations, and you think why the hell did the newest Star Wars fail to achieve this?

 

[KeithTalent]

And yet millions of adults loved the original trilogy when it was released. Critics loved it, etc. So I think it was a failure of the franchise to make the Force Awakens as a universally loved film for kids as well as adults like the original trilogy was.

You look at the Marvel films and their appeal across generations, and you think why the hell did the newest Star Wars fail to achieve this?

It's a good point, but I think the original films were very new at the time, so people were excited to see something unique up on screen. Tony Kornheiser, who is like 90, was talking about this on his radio show. It was a new experience back when the originals came out; the new film(s) have none of that allure. TFA is just a rehash of old stuff, as has been discussed here ad nauseam, and does absolutely nothing new/interesting from a character or world building perspective.

KT

 

[CZroe]

And yet millions of adults loved the original trilogy when it was released. Critics loved it, etc. So I think it was a failure of the franchise to make the Force Awakens as a universally loved film for kids as well as adults like the original trilogy was.

You look at the Marvel films and their appeal across generations, and you think why the hell did the newest Star Wars fail to achieve this?

There were curse words in the original. EP1 had a joke about cursing (when Sebulba says something captioned as "Bantha Fodder" you hear the same word when when he crashes his pod racer... uncaptioned). It's clear to me that the original was never intended to be as popular with kids as it was and they made a concerted effort after that to make the series more kid-friendly.

 

[blankslate]

I don't know about people gushing over Episode I, the first mention of midichlorians bothered me... then after I had a few days to think about it really irritated me because it was unnecessary.

I had no urge to see Ep I a second time. I have seen Ep, VII multiple times....

Here are two interesting hypothesis videos on who Rey is... and one has a kind of interesting theory on who Snoke is and how that relates to the Skywalkers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdYWOoY1-X0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-kznQqU8Yc

I don't think everything in the videos will pan out but I wouldn't be surprised if they are at least partially right.


______________

 

[Kev]

"Sharpest critics today" does not strictly mean "professional critics."

For example:
The good folks at RedLetterMedia stated their opinions very well. That deconstruction is practically what made them professional critics, so it's hard to consider them professionals at the time. They had day jobs for sure. Even they pointed out that it took a while to sink in because people wanted it to be good.

My point was that everyone acknowledges that the movie was better accepted then than it is now (except for you, it seems). You seem to think you can ignore that point by twisting "sharpest critics" into "professional critics" and then hand-waving the point away along with their opinion EVEN THOUGH YOU SHARE THEIR OPINION (that the prequels suck). Is this how you think debating works?

History really is repeating itself. The professional critics and most audiences were absolutely GUSHING at the time EP1 launched. Roger Ebert couldn't get enough! I got caught up in the excitement and went to see it a second time! "I really do not give two shits about what "professional" critics think of a movie." I choose to learn from history and not ignore it.

What the hell are you talking about, TPM got 56% on Rotten Tomatoes. You're just saying words and not backing anything up with any kind of empirical data.