PatrickS77

16 hours ago, Jw224 said:

Chris Terrio on why they made the decision to revive Palpatine. Whilst it does make sense I still feel if they were more creative they could have done it without him. 

“Kathy Kennedy and Michelle Rejwan had a clear plan for where they wanted things to end. They had clear plans about certain narrative marks they wanted us to hit. They also gave us a lot of freedom within that. We knew that Rey and Ren were utterly key to this trilogy, but we also felt that there was no way that we were going to not find a path to redemption for Kylo Ren, the son of Han and Leia. We felt that right from the beginning, when J.J. established Kylo Ren in Episode VII, there was a war going on inside him and that he had been corrupted by something bigger than himself and had made bad choices along the way. J.J. and I felt we needed to find a way in which he could be redeemed…”

Kathy Kennedy is a total doofus, who has no clue at all. While rewatching all the movies and also watching all the bonus materials and audio commentaries and hearing these people talk I can't help to get angry at these people responsible for how these movies turned out. Yes, the movies have a great look, but overall it went from acceptable to really and ended with are you fucking kidding me?! Kylo Ren as a character is unredeemable. And they made him that way. Glad the fucker is dead.

12 hours ago, metallex78 said:

I hated The Last Jedi, so I liked The Rise of Skywalker in that it seemed set out to fix all the wrongs of that film. But it still had a fair amount of cringe worthy moments too. 

The whole movie is cringeworthy. Everything. Especially the Emperor scenes. Torrented it today, after rewatching every Star Wars movie in the past week, to see if it is still that bad on second viewing and yes, it's an embarrasing mess. Just a line up of cringeworthy scenes with no real story. And really, how often is that guy yelling out: "REYY"? So annoying.

5 hours ago, downzy said:

I'd like to agree with you, but I think most of the criticisms of Star Wars are not entirely objective and comes from strange place that needs to disparage some aspects or elements in order to defend the value of other aspects.  

As I said in my previous post, most people who were around when the OT came out or watched them in the 80s when they were kids are different people now.  They use different rules and standards to evaluate the new films that aren't applied to the old films. 

The older I get and the more distance I put between the OT and my youth the more I see them for what they were: visually stunning films that were way ahead of their time from a technical standpoint, but still fairly flawed films with respect to storytelling, dialogue, acting, editing, etc.  I think it's harder for 30 and 40 year olds to see the new films through the same perspectives they had as kids.  Hence any new Star Wars films are going to be ripped to shreds since they're comparing nostalgia and memories of their youth to new entries that don't benefit from the same childlike perspective.  

I read someone say that those who want to shit on the new trilogy are likely the same people who can't acknowledge that old films aren't all that great, so they project their frustrations onto the new films.  I think there's an element of truth to that.  

No. It's total bs. Sorry. Even if back then those movies were judged differently, due to most of us being kids then, we still see them with grown up eyes now and thus we acknowledge that these movies are not as great as we once thought when we were kids. But still, none of those were as bad in storytelling and disrespecting the lore as these new ones are. And really, we are 40 years removed. Everything has evolved. Star Wars now is a multi-billion dollar business, instead of a quasi independent filmaker, who wasn't sure how many movies he couldm actually make. Now they can get the best people in the world and do whatever und hey want, without any financial limitation. Why can't the story telling and movie making evolve too, to be of higher quality in certain aspects than the OT? Instead they delivered poorly thought out, bad sorytelling, SW lore disrespecting shit. There are tons of stories in the (discarded) SW universe. Some great, some bad, some horrible, but most of them better than what they came up with. They could have picked out the absoutely best material and delivered amazing movies, but sadly they didn't qnd majorily dropped the ball with the disjointed mess they put out. 

On 19.12.2019 at 2:03 AM, GNRmello77 said:

Anyone going to Aerosmith in Europe in 2020? For me the nearest gigs are graspop on Monchengladbach but graspop sunday is the same day as pinkpop where Guns play so I Will probably go for the one in Germany, altho 98 euro's a ticket is also outragious for Aerosmith. Does this make anyone decide not to go? 

It should, but it don't. Who knows how many more times they will come over.

Yeah. Got some things lined up:

05.03. Alice Cooper/Rock meets Classic in Kempten
06.03. Alice Cooper/Rock meets Classic in Zurich
07.03. Alice Cooper/Rock meets Classic in Nuremberg
11.03. Alice Cooper/Rock meets Classic in Bamberg
17.03. Alice Cooper/Rock meets Classic in Neu-Ulm

24.05. Queen + Adam Lambert in Bologna
26.05. Guns N' Roses in Munich

08.06. System of a down in Berlin
12.06. System of a down/Korn in Milano
13.06. Aerosmith in Milano
16.06. Aerosmith in Zurich
19.06. System of a down in Zurich
25.06. Diana Ross in Cork
26.06. Diana Ross in Dublin
27.06. Guns N' Roses in Dublin
28.06. Queen + Adam Lambert in Zurich

02.07. Melissa Etheridge in Munich
04.07. Lenny Kravitz in Klam
06.07. Aerosmith in Lissabon
10.07. Faith no more in Lissabon
27.07. Aerosmith in Mönchengladbach

04.08. Lionel Richie in Ludwigsburg
15.08. Hollywood Vampires in Mainz
28.08. Hollywood Vampires in Munich
29.08. Hollywood Vampires in Aarburg

10.09. Hollywood Vampires in Milano

24.11. Ozzy Osbourne in Zurich
26.11. Ozzy Osbourne in Munich

And yeah. Concerts are getting too expensive.

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

I'm just going by the feedback I've heard from all my friends and family. No one I know has disliked it so far. 

Clearly these people have no taste. 

11 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Yep... Like many things; in spite of the haters and fan boys claiming it's the end of days, many people are going to see the film and (most importantly) enjoying the hell out of it. 

Many people seeing it, doesn't really mean that many people are really enjoing it. Even if people tell me it's the worst shit ever, I still would go to see for myself (hadn't I already seen it).

On 11.11.2019 at 10:34 AM, Len Cnut said:

Threads like this make me realise how little new music I listen to.  Like zero almost.  When it is its usually just old artists. 

Same for me. And of the new albums I heard, it's from old artists. And since I could count them on 2 hands it's not really fair to list them, but

Alice Cooper - Welcome 2 my nightmare

Europe - Bag of bones

Europe - War of kings

Europe - Walk the earth

Black Sabbath - 13

Janet Jackson - Unbreakable

U2 - Songs of innocence

Slash - Slash

Slash - World on fire

Dee Snider - For the love of metal

Daft Punk - Random Access Memory

6 hours ago, Axlr0s37 said:

I for one am glad Fortus is still in the band. He has more than earned his place. He always made Guns his priority. Even cooler to hear he and Slash get on really well. 

He would be an idiot not to.

On 4.12.2019 at 9:35 AM, action said:

here's my personal take on the bond franchise.

the last james bond movie that I enjoyed was moonraker. I don't care what the critics say, silly story and all, moore was in fine doing and it was entertaining at least. I mean, it had jaws (who goes through one of the most interesting vilain - good guy evolutions ever)! Even with the silly star wars stuff, the movie didn't hold it's audience for idiots. Likewise, 95 % of the movies that came before are some of my favorite movies ever. So much classics, so much classic moments, so much humour and attitude.

After moonraker, it went downhill really fast. "for your eyes only" was a turd of a movie with that annoying "bibi" character. I cringe, just thinking about it. octopussy was a borefest, a view to a kill had too little roger moore, and after that they changed actors anyway and no one could reach the heights moore and connery had set.

The only good thing to come out after moonraker, was a video game: goldeneye 007 on the N64.

You should try Nightfire. Heavily influenced by Moonraker and the classic Bond movies. Awesome game.

16 minutes ago, northernsoul said:

Metallica was cheaper but it was hardly cheap, I paid £95 for a top seat in the UK and around £110 i think for a decent seat for the stadium leg. The stadium production also blew Guns out of the water.  Axl actually put together some half decent stage shows for 5k attendances in arenas for Nu GNR yet in the stadiums we didn't really get the production we deserved IMO.  Bands are doing amazing things these days with the production and Guns are miles behind in this and I think certainly for younger concert goers it is expected now.

Yes. But for 600 $/€ you can attend as many shows as you like. Front of stage and early entry included.

Not sure though how the Nu-Guns stage show could be considered better. Don't really see that.

19 minutes ago, The Holographic Universe said:

I agree. It would be super cool now that GNR are a functional touring band. The only thing is I can’t imagine what a ticket to such a show would cost. GNRs ticket prices are borderline insane. Metallica is much more fan friendly with ticket prices. 

Yes. And then we could buy a black ticket and wouldn't need to worry about ticket prices anymore. That's the most fan friendly thing any band has ever done. 

2 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Two stadium runs? Did I miss a second leg of the stadium tour where they played the same cities again? 

Does that matter? They played stadiums 2 years running. People went to the shows accordingly. They are also not playing the same cities in Europe (excemptions apply).

2 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Pff... "fine" then why don't they just use it all the time. Just strap a huge engine to a chunk of metal and launch it then. Even if it was hard for Holdo, it was because she had no computer to calculate (which makes it even dumber for her not relaying this task to a droid with machine precision). If computers can calculate coordinates for lightspeed-travelling vessels not hit each other, then it can calculate how to hit them, and engineers would've surely researched that, since it is so effective and pretty much criples the utility of star destroyers. It's not about being cool, it's about being incoherent.

Well. Clearly you don't want to loose your ship. That shit costs money. So I can buy that this is a last resort. It was either that or losing the the rebell fleet and thus the rebel alliance dying. And since it is a last resort, which usually is not done, everyone is caught be surprise (and they obviously haven't seen Star Trek: Nemesis ). Otherwise they probably could have just shot down that ship/be prepared for something like that happening. I don't really see that as a weak point. Of course, they could have used a droid to steer the ship, so Holdo wouldn't have to sacrifice herself, but where is the heroics in that?

On 23.12.2019 at 8:04 PM, RussTCB said:

I don't think anyone is claiming that forum members make up the majority of a GNR audience. Or at least I hope no one is making that claim. 

However, I don't think there's enough "die hard" fans worldwide to continue to support tours without new material. The entire first run of NITL was supported by people excited to see Slash & Axl back together. 

Here in the US, they already had to downgrade the second run to arenas. I think it's bold of them to be doing stadiums again in Europe, so we'll have to see how that goes. 

What are you talking about? They did 2 stadium runs in the states. When they went for a third run (the second one in the same year and in the winter), they went into arenas. Perfectly normal. And the shows that have been reported, were sold out or at least close. Seriously, when you feel the need to argue against and deny the success of the band for which forum you are an admin, at least stick to to facts.

7 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

 

What happened in the old movies? A miserable detail like an accent? An incest that was properly handled and that characters had no way of knowing it anyway? It being not planned as a Trilogy at first because of budget limits? 

You want to compare that with the weaponized light speed? Rey being able to be a better lightsaber duelist than a guy who trained all his life WITHOUT any sort of training or doing Jedi mind tricks also without training? They falling into some quicksand wormpit insearch of a mcguffin and then finding said thing and an abandoned, but still functional ship? Luke acting out of character (even his ACT0R was like "I don't agree with nothing in here")?  The whole throne room fight where they had to erase a weapon from one of the red guys's hand so he would not kill Rey? Palpatine surviving and screwing up the OT's achievements? Palpatine being able to amass two armies, a giant sith fleet with planet destroying technology and another death star without anyone noticing? Rey being the daughter of nobodies at 23:59 and then being Palpatine's long lost granddaughter at 00:00?

Again out of likes. Seriously. This limited likes business is as annoying as the new Star wars movies.

1 hour ago, Amir said:

I think A New Hope and especially Empire Strikes Back are far better films, but they weren't exactly masterminded years in advance/following an exact plan. Yes, Lucas did write a multi-chapter "The Star Wars", but that changed a lot over time. When "Star Wars" was released in 1977, Darth Vader was a dude, and Darth was just his first name, not a title. The father reveal was an addition during development of Empire:

https://www.quora.com/Did-George-Lucas-know-that-Darth-Vader-was-Lukes-father-during-the-production-of-Episode-4

https://www.quora.com/When-the-original-1977-Star-Wars-was-made-did-George-Lucas-already-know-that-Darth-Vader-was-going-to-be-the-father-of-Luke-and-Leia

When Yoda says "there is another", he wasn't referring to Leia, but another Jedi who would be revealed. The plot of ROTJ cribbed from what was supposed to be Episode IX. Leia being Luke's sister was an addition after Empire, hence the incestuous kiss:

https://www.quora.com/When-Yoda-says-there-is-another-Skywalker-in-Return-of-the-Jedi-is-he-referring-to-Rey-from-the-Force-Awakens

That said, all these decisions were guided by one man. With the sequel trilogy, you have Abrams and Johnson with diametrically opposed views of what they want to say and do with a Star Wars film, and it makes no sense to have them share a trilogy. TLJ makes much of TFA redundant, as does TROS with TLJ.

As a new film maker, he couldn't be sure of the success of the movie and that he could make 3 movies. And really, why does it matter whether he had a plan or not? He pulled it off and it's barely noticeable, that he made it up as he went along. For the prequel trilogy he had a plan and stuck to it. Disney is a billion dollar company and knew from the get go they were making 3 movies and yet they failed to come up with a story for 3 movies and failed to plan accordingly, letting one hired director paint them in a corner to the point that it unraveld the whole thing.

5 hours ago, RussTCB said:

You guys are literally making me lol with your thin justifications of a gigantic plot hole lol

It simply is not a plot hole.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Is that true though? I feel like saying to them celebrating on Endor at the end of Return of the Jedi,

''All a complete waste of time!! You have just wasted your life being in the rebel alliance people. Congratulations. You two (Han and Leia) shag and produce a son who sort of turns to the dark side, and sort of doesn't, and then sort of does (he cannot really make up his mind); he ends up committing patricide Han so you'd better watch him! The Emperor Palpatine actually survived his epic fall and explosion so you shouldn't look so happy there Luke! Luke, you are going to turn into one of the Bee Gees when you grow older and live on a little island milking strange creatures. The Emperor? The Emperor has in fact been a naughty boy and has been spreading his oats with his deformed Sith codger so there will be more Palpatines. There are star destroyers and Tie-fighters still about to be built, and fascist uniforms to be worn by people with English accents, so the empire survived really, except it will be renamed the First Order. There will even be Death Star type constructions which are destroyed in the exact same manner as the Death Stars you lot destroyed, so engineering clearly won't improve''. 

Out of likes, but that's why I kinda came to hate the ST (which got worse from movie to movie) and think it's a colossal waste of time. It did nothing to move things along, just shit on everything, set things back and gave us a rehash, just in bad.

5 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Did it suddenly turn into Citizen Kane at the halfway mark then?  

No. But then you kinda knew what was coming. The extensive worlds and characters. The opulency of it all, while the OT is rather reduced.

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I saw Phantom Menace on opening night and actually really loved it at the time. It didn't stand up to repeated viewing. Saw Clones on release too and thought it was awful. Didn't bother going to see ROTS and to this day I've still not watched the whole thing. Tried a bunch of times and I just get about half way through and turn it off.

Yeah, well. Saw all of them in the cinma, was disapointed with Menace, while happy that Star Wars was back. Enjoyed Attack and Revenge so much more. Both in the cinema and  on repeat viewings. But then again, I read the comics, read the books and played the computer games, so I have a different access than one who just watched the OT. Maybe you should watch the complete Revenge to have a valid opinion though.

8 minutes ago, Dazey said:

It seems we may never agree but that's cool. I actually think that as execrable as the prequels were Phantom was by far the best. At least it had some actual sets and Darth Maul. 

Yeah. Looks like it. I don't care too much about Darth Maul. And while I view Menace more favourible than I used to, it's still the one I want to watch least. Too much desert, too much Jar Jar, too much pod racing, too much of that kid, too much Liam Neeson (who I kinda consider boring), McGregor not really shining in the role yet and just wrong pacing. But the other moments are quite alright.

7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I'm sure they do but the prequels add nothing as far as I'm concerned. The Skywalker saga was better as three movies than nine. I did really enjoy Rogue One and Solo however. They should have just left the OT well alone and concentrated on the spinoffs. 

They certainly add more than the ST. Sure Menace is a bore, but I quite like Attack and Revenge. Rogue one also adds nothing, it's not even a fun movie to watch, but still my favourite of the new ones. And really, you don't recast Han Solo (or Lando Carlrissian), so I could have perfectly done without Solo.

14 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I did see it after I saw the originals but for anybody coming to the films now, the chronology is Episodes I-IX and by watching them in that order you spoil a lot of what made the originals great for old cunts like me.  

Also Yoda in the PT was fucking horrible!

But people can still watch it in the way it was released. At least when they watch it for the first time that is recomended anyway. But really, for people who watch it now, it might be common knowledge either way that Vader is Luke's father.

Why? Because you prefer him to be a puppet?

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Yeah but the whole dramatic heft of Empire kinda hinges on the fact that we don't know that Vader is Luke's father. The prequels completely ruin that.

So? You saw the PT after you saw the OT. So nothing changes. At least the PT shows that Yoda is more than a funny talking frog.