Oh...not to backtrack us back to the last dust up too badly, but now that I've finally had a chance to catch up fully on this thread:

Picasso was a lousy, low talent excuse of an artist too.

Unsure if you're joking, but Picasso was actually a very talented artist. He had very good technical skills and there are some "traditional" paintings by him out there. They're just not famous. And what people actually think of when you say Picasso was very interesting (at least to me). Unfortunately, he had what is called a Sylvia Plath Effect. He did something that was great on its own merits, but unfortunately opened the door to a lot of people who thought they could be equally profound by just aping the superficial style of the innovator.

Killing Han was a risk, sure, but it matters how, by whose hand and so on. It ups the ante, it carries the story, it makes sense. But yeah, it was a risk. Star Wars fans are not the most forgiving lot no ...

I don't think Harrison Ford gave them a choice. It was either kill Han, or leave him out of it completely. And the latter would have been pretty unacceptable, so there wasn't really any risk killing him off.

According to some interviews, Han was supposed to survive, but then they (JJ and/or Kasdan) felt he became relegate to a very shiny piece of baggage with no real reason to be there... which may be true considering the story they told. Now, if the story had been different, he may have survived, but I must say I felt his death was good, had meaning and serves as a emotional device for both good guys and bad guys. This is something I have no beef with, it's sad, sure, but I get why, beyond the fact that Ford may have wanted it - or not.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

About risk: I think people are confusing what risk is. Risk isn't "anything negative". Making the audience cry isn't "risk". Disney is happy to play with emotional impact (Bambi's mother, Han's death) because these things fall into the standard types of storytelling arcs. Guardians of the Galaxy fits the mould, as does Ant-man...they aren't risky because they still follow the standard arcs: heroes win, boy gets girl, mega-death machine is conquered (for now). Toss in a little nostalgia (like a 70s soundtrack), and you're set. All the Marvel stuff is set up like that. In fact, GotG is even more standard, because the hero has that "I'm from special descent" going on, even if he's unaware...he's Luke in E4 all over again.

Risk takes those elements away. Boy loses girl and everything else but power; hope dies for everybody else; everything you thought you were doing right is just leading you into a trap; ... those arcs are riskier and harder to tell. So the PT was more risky...though mitigated because everybody knew that it turned back into the standard arc later on. I don't see Disney breaking the standard that's served them since Snow White.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

That was very satisfying

About risk: I think people are confusing what risk is. Risk isn't "anything negative". Making the audience cry isn't "risk". Disney is happy to play with emotional impact (Bambi's mother, Han's death) because these things fall into the standard types of storytelling arcs. Guardians of the Galaxy fits the mould, as does Ant-man...they aren't risky because they still follow the standard arcs: heroes win, boy gets girl, mega-death machine is conquered (for now). Toss in a little nostalgia (like a 70s soundtrack), and you're set. All the Marvel stuff is set up like that. In fact, GotG is even more standard, because the hero has that "I'm from special descent" going on, even if he's unaware...he's Luke in E4 all over again.

Risk takes those elements away. Boy loses girl and everything else but power; hope dies for everybody else; everything you thought you were doing right is just leading you into a trap; ... those arcs are riskier and harder to tell. So the PT was more risky...though mitigated because everybody knew that it turned back into the standard arc later on. I don't see Disney breaking the standard that's served them since Snow White.

Agree with a lot of that, but I will just give one counter-point:

;P

Sorry, I don't know who that is

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

That article comes across as just another attempt to belittle and silence those who don't care for the film.

Oh...not to backtrack us back to the last dust up too badly, but now that I've finally had a chance to catch up fully on this thread:

Picasso was a lousy, low talent excuse of an artist too.

Unsure if you're joking, but Picasso was actually a very talented artist. He had very good technical skills and there are some "traditional" paintings by him out there. They're just not famous. And what people actually think of when you say Picasso was very interesting (at least to me). Unfortunately, he had what is called a Sylvia Plath Effect. He did something that was great on its own merits, but unfortunately opened the door to a lot of people who thought they could be equally profound by just aping the superficial style of the innovator.

I was half joking.

I understand that he is a very highly regarded artist the world over, and that I lack any sort of formal education or training upon which to base my evaluation.

That being said, however, I've never seen anything he ever did that suggested to me that he was anything other than a talentless hack. He's one of the (very) few artists who, after seeing their work, and learning a little bit about them, I was totally and completely unimpressed. (This was happening while I was seeing an Art History student, so they made very sure I was properly exposed to at least a basic level of arts & culture at a time when I was far more concerned with grungy dive bars and small time rock bands.) Monet, Van Gogh, Rembrandt...wow. Gaugin (sp?), Dali...not really my thing, but I can respect what they're doing. Picasso alone was the runt of the litter...that no matter what I saw from him, or any amount of background information I was furnished with...nothing he produced got any higher praise from me than "well it's not as bad as that other thing he did".

Sure, it doesn't matter what I think in the slightest, when we're talking big picture (but that's getting into the same nonsense as Disney caring what we think of TFA somehow being at all relevant), but yeah...Picasso alone among the 'great artists of history' is one for whom I have nothing nice to say about his work. I just don't care for any piece of his I've ever seen. It's not even that I feel revulsion...at least that would be a strong reaction...I just don't feel anything.

Sorry, I don't know who that is

It's Elsa. A main character from the movie Frozen. Which trampled over numerous traditional Disney tropes.

Sorry, I don't know who that is

It's Elsa. A main character from the movie Frozen. Which trampled over numerous traditional Disney tropes.

Such as...

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

That article comes across as just another attempt to belittle and silence those who don't care for the film.

Did you see that tripe circulating around various social media outlets from some blogger who went through some HuffPo article and responded to it?

Reads like some of what we have here, basically, "If you don't love hte movie as much as I did, here's my judgments about your IQ, genealogy, and personal hygiene habits.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

That article comes across as just another attempt to belittle and silence those who don't care for the film.

Did you see that tripe circulating around various social media outlets from some blogger who went through some HuffPo article and responded to it?

Reads like some of what we have here, basically, "If you don't love hte movie as much as I did, here's my judgments about your IQ, genealogy, and personal hygiene habits.

Someone linked to it here already -- it's part of why I referred to the linked article above as "another".

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

That article comes across as just another attempt to belittle and silence those who don't care for the film.

At the same time it's doing the same against people who belittled George Lucas and still do (whether because of the PT and the insane amounts of nerd rage when Lucas said a few ... very badly picked things in an interview recently). At least that's how I read it.

Again it sort of comes back to that generational thing and phenomenon Star Wars is.

Gomen nasai.

I read maybe 5% of what people on message boards link to and tell me to read.

Gomen nasai.

I read maybe 5% of what people on message boards link to and tell me to read.

No worries -- that might be the better policy anyway.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

That article comes across as just another attempt to belittle and silence those who don't care for the film.

I think you're reading too much into it. I got a kick out of the article, but it doesn't make my any happier with TFA.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

That article comes across as just another attempt to belittle and silence those who don't care for the film.

I think you're reading too much into it. I got a kick out of the article, but it doesn't make my any happier with TFA.

Well, it is possible that the amount and viciousness of the backlash against criticism has worn through my patience...

Either way, the article itself is... silly, at best. The movie was not some sort of meta-message about George Lucas, for F's sake.

Either way, the article itself is... silly, at best. The movie was not some sort of meta-message about George Lucas, for F's sake.

Of course not. I read it as tongue in cheek...with a bit of commentary on fandom...

I read maybe 5% of what people on message boards link to and tell me to read.

Strong policy. Whatever you do, don't click here and start reading .

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

Similar to my thoughts but I don't think he's exactly right.

Finn represents the fans that grew up during the prequels. He was taken as a child and brainwashed into liking them. But as soon as he sees blood, a thing the prequels lacked, he snaps out of his conditioning. The First Order represents the prequel movies themselves [they are first in the order]. They are clean, young, good looking, and they want desperately to be like the OT but just can't live up to it.

Luke in TFA isn't Lucas, he represents the older OT fans. We've moved away from Star Wars, literally turning our backs to it as Luke does. When Rey comes to Luke at the end she's carrying Luke's lightsaber, the very symbol of everything good about the original movies. She's holding it up as if to say, "it's ok to come back. Star Wars is fun again."

I see armchair directing, writing and critisizing on both sides and can find points on both sides I can agree and disagree with. Too much of the analysis reminds me of high school english and Shakespeare. Overdone to the point where it can wreck it for me. So most I ignore. My stick of measurement for any movie for me is whether or not I enjoyed it and whether it has rewatchability. The Force Awakens has both. Have I seen the story before? Lots. As long as I enjoyed my time in the theater it is money well spent. At the end of the day it was a great addition to the Star Wars mythos.

Rewatchability. A good measurement.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

Similar to my thoughts but I don't think he's exactly right.

Finn represents the fans that grew up during the prequels. He was taken as a child and brainwashed into liking them. But as soon as he sees blood, a thing the prequels lacked, he snaps out of his conditioning. The First Order represents the prequel movies themselves [they are first in the order]. They are clean, young, good looking, and they want desperately to be like the OT but just can't live up to it.

Luke in TFA isn't Lucas, he represents the older OT fans. We've moved away from Star Wars, literally turning our backs to it as Luke does. When Rey comes to Luke at the end she's carrying Luke's lightsaber, the very symbol of everything good about the original movies. She's holding it up as if to say, "it's ok to come back. Star Wars is fun again."

Nothing in the movie -- no objects, no characters, no anything -- represents Lucas, fans, or anyone else.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

Similar to my thoughts but I don't think he's exactly right.

Finn represents the fans that grew up during the prequels. He was taken as a child and brainwashed into liking them. But as soon as he sees blood, a thing the prequels lacked, he snaps out of his conditioning. The First Order represents the prequel movies themselves [they are first in the order]. They are clean, young, good looking, and they want desperately to be like the OT but just can't live up to it.

Luke in TFA isn't Lucas, he represents the older OT fans. We've moved away from Star Wars, literally turning our backs to it as Luke does. When Rey comes to Luke at the end she's carrying Luke's lightsaber, the very symbol of everything good about the original movies. She's holding it up as if to say, "it's ok to come back. Star Wars is fun again."

Nothing in the movie -- no objects, no characters, no anything -- represents Lucas, fans, or anyone else.

I'd like a few of the characters in the movie to represent me. They're in way better shape and better looking all around.

Also, I came across this fun read . I may not agree with it, but it is an entertaining and sweet little text.

Similar to my thoughts but I don't think he's exactly right.

Finn represents the fans that grew up during the prequels. He was taken as a child and brainwashed into liking them. But as soon as he sees blood, a thing the prequels lacked, he snaps out of his conditioning. The First Order represents the prequel movies themselves [they are first in the order]. They are clean, young, good looking, and they want desperately to be like the OT but just can't live up to it.

Luke in TFA isn't Lucas, he represents the older OT fans. We've moved away from Star Wars, literally turning our backs to it as Luke does. When Rey comes to Luke at the end she's carrying Luke's lightsaber, the very symbol of everything good about the original movies. She's holding it up as if to say, "it's ok to come back. Star Wars is fun again."

Kek, nicely done.