Sorry Mike, but JJ sucks

It doesn't matter know you spin it. You recommended JJ for Star Wars and look what happened ....

He made a watchable movie.

They are wrong and they know it, but admitting it would risk potentially invalidating every review they have made which isn't something they can risk as they are seen by many to be the gospel on what is and isn't good in film.
Especially star wars.

JJ direct good, but keep him the fuck away from your screenplay or he will do to it what Yoda did to those books.

The Force Awakens is better than The Last Jedi. It had some good ideas like Vader occultists, an ex stormtrooper turned good guy, Kylo Ren LARPing as Vader, Snoke was mysterious and there was potential with his background. The film also captured the adventure and had good locations because JJ is a competent director. The audience score on RT shows the vast majority of the audience were satisfied with it as a jump off movie into a new trilogy. The mistake was changing writer/director midway and abandoning the interesting ideas.

I just watched the Last Jedi Half in the Bag. I genuinely don't like Jay or Rich. They both have shit taste and aren't funny. Mike is the only reason to watch that shit and he seemed like he was holding his tongue to a degree.

Jay jumped the shark this time.
They also keep contradicting themselves.

He jumped the shark ages ago. He's a turbo pleb.

He will probably be more harsh when the dust has settled and they break it down with a Plinkett review. They acknowledged that they called for writer/director freedom and this is what they got, a mixed bag. Jay's response to that to say Star Wars is a limited universe like Back to the Future wasn't a good comparison.

>Snoke
How about a villian who doesn't have a ridicolous appearance and name. He looks monstrous. Disney really didn't want anyone doubting who is the bad guy.

>Jay's response to that to say Star Wars is a limited universe like Back to the Future wasn't a good comparison.

It's a copout by any measure. A universe is only as limited as your imagination. The Star Wars films have a great setting that could have been used to set up countless new characters and stories whilst acknowledging the past and giving it a fitting send off. It just needed to be in more competent hands.

Seriously what the fuck was he thinkning suggesting JJ Abrams? Jesus Christ.

>Jay's response to that to say Star Wars is a limited universe like Back to the Future wasn't a good comparison.
The entire argument was bullshit because they whined about the prequels expanding the scope beyond the OT and jacked off to tfa for being a replica of the OT and with r1 they realized that the OT is limited in scope and now they bitch that star wars is limited in scope, something they actively argued for with their autistic rejection of everything that is not exactly like the star wars they saw as 5 years olds.
They are hypocrites and either dumb or dishonest.

I vote dumb and dishonest.

I think that the point isn't so much that you can't expand the world over what the OT did, it's that when you do you quickly go away from what makes Star Wars succesful and appealing from a plot and characters standpoint.
I honestly think Star Wars was too succesful as a franchise for its own good.

The Plinkett stuff is what legitimized them so they think they're serious film critics but they're just comedians who make funny nitpick comments

#
But they're wrong because if anything Vader and Tarkin's scenes dragged down the pace of Rogue One, and the ending was done purely for showing off CG effects recreation of a dead woman.

Your reply has little to do with my post. Shoving a couple of characters as fanservice in a movie doesn't mean it suddenly adheres to the same plot structure type and character interactions as the OT did. That's like saying people should like the prequels because Yoda is in them, despite him not having a similar role as in the OT.
Rogue one had so little appeal to me I still haven't bothered to watch it (although TFA took me like 6 months to get around to watch too).

You should check it out. I just rewatched it spurred on by another thread and it's seriously growing on me. The plot structure doesn't matter, the idea that it does is hogwash.

To you point about them "jacking off to tfa for being a replica of the OT", they did note that that was sort of all it had to be. Kind of getting the "Remember the original star wars feel?" out of the way after the prequels, opening up for something new. You can certainly criticize TFA for a variety of things, but as a movie of its time in a post-prequel star wars world, I think it was fine. The plot structure totally is New Hope, but I tihnk there's enough neat ideas in there to at least keep it interesting and worth watching. But I'm a pretty casual star wars fan so maybe that plays a part.

When they say star wars is limited, I think they're more thinking of it as something that has been around for so long and has a fanbase with certain expectations. You can go in many directions with it, but it's hard not to stray too far from what it originally was, and it's hard not to play it too safe. That's how I understood it, anyway. Might be extrapolating a bit.

It does though. People didn't like Star Wars just because it had lasers and shit, they liked it because of the type of story it told. But it's a simple story, that's not worth telling twice in the same setting, hence why it's limited in what it can do while retaining what it is to be a Star Wars story. That's my opinion anyway.
But then R1 was literally happening DURING the events of the OT, so I wouldn't say they strayed very far from the original's shadow either.

The prequels felt more like star wars than tfa.
Tfa kind of looked the part but didn't feel star wars all that much because it was so generic and safe.
Just having storm troopers and the millennium falcon doesn't cut it.
That's the point though. Rlm don't even know what they want. First they reject the prequels because they want more OT and less World building. Now they got more stuff that looks like the OT and now they want the world building again, even though the sequels are directly catering to their demands of "less story, less politics, less Jedi, more stormtroopers"

>The prequels felt more like star wars than tfa.
Be honest, how old were you when the prequels came out?

The only way in which the prequels "feel more like star wars" that I can agree on is that they were risk taking. TFA feels much closer to the originals because it's about an adventure, and that's really all the OT was about. The prequels feels like the confused meandering of someone that didn't know what star wars meant 20 years after star wars came out. It was unmitigated George Lucas having nobody to tell him "george, that's a terrible idea" or "george, this is fucking boring" or "george, this dialogue is fucking terrible" or "george, you can't make your whole movie on a fucking greenscreen".

I'm not really gonna go to bat for the new movies, I haven't seen Last Jedi and don't intend on rewatching TFA. But I will not stand for this revisionism bullshit of "the prequels weren't that bad". They're fucking terrible, boring, messy movies. Just because lucas is behind the camera and takes some risks doesn't mean it feels at all close to what made the OT good.

As for what RLM wants, the fuck do I know. I think they more or less said they approved of what rian johnson was trying to do, but he didn't do it very well. Just because he goes in the direction they desire doesn't mean he does it the exact way they wanted it.

You forgot "george, this war on terror analogy is painfuly laborous and will age terribly"

Or "george, why Obi-wan information broker runs a 50's diner"