>antagonist randomly kills some of his own men
Why is this the worst damn trope to ever exist in history?
I just saw the movie in Italy, ask me anything.
Obviously if you don't want spoilers avoid this thread.
Every Review for the exception of 3 plus, opinions of the people who saw the movie say the same about how awesome this new movies is. Do you actually gain something from shitposting about a movie?
( you probably haven't even see it) Just admit you want it to fail just because is popular.
Have you ever based an opinion on a desire to be different than the mainstream even if it was contrary to how you actually felt? Or is it just something you think other people (whose opinions you disagree with) do?
I suspect that rarely if ever happens, and is nothing more than an easy way to dismiss opinions you don't like or can't argue against effectively.
TFA is just copy pasta poetry of NH
So in this thread we post our ideas for our Episode VII
Let's show that literally everybody can made better ideas than Hackbrams
There is only one condition:
No EU stuff allowed
Luke kills himself in order to avoid getting corrupted, and goes as a force ghost looking for people around the galaxy to come together, and kill off an ancient race of aliens that likes to fuck around with the dark side, and has come into game in the galaxy recently, with some ancient technology or whatever. Lando Clarissan son and Han's son are in charge of visiting the potential candidates to reform the Jedi Order, under the guidance of Luke, and carry them to some whatever the fuck planet which was used by ancient jedis or some shit.
Where's my millions of dollars?
What went wrong?
So what's his motivation, why is he a bad buy?
The true patrician has spoken.
>The hearty sentiment and the breathlessly clever plotting of “The Force Awakens” are delights, but narrowly limited delights. There’s pleasure within measure, but no uninhibited joy or terror, no ecstasy, no unmanaged passion. The secrets of the movie are the secrets of its plot; the mysteries are purely narrative, not at all visual, symbolic, metaphorical, or experiential. Nothing of the true force of the cinema.
>Even the mightiest of catastrophes and most clamorous of battles never reach the actual thrill of experience; they stand outside themselves and await the feedback of admiration, like the cinematic equivalent of a flashing applause sign.
>The movie is fast-moving—featuring rapid action within the frame, rapid camera movements, and rapid cutting from shot to shot—yet it feels sluggish throughout, because the speed of thought is slow.
Hey /tv/. I've played a good deal of detective videogames recently, but right now I want to get into more film Noir. I recently watched the Maltese Falcon, and thought it was pretty cool. I enjoy that time period and setting. What are some other classics I should see just getting into the genre?
Tarantino&Inarritu getting shut out
Anyone on here want to see a StarCraft movie made?
Yes, but nothing from sc2. Original and brood war only. The story of sc2 is total shit the only good stuff is in wings of liberty, it gets full retard after that. I love sc2 as a game but damn does it's campaign suck
Is it really bad, or is the negativity /tv/ contrarian bullshit?
HOLY FUCK THIS IS AWFUL
So the makers of The Expanse are giving us a Fedora wearing protagonist..
i am half throught he first episode and they didnt call him euphoric yet..
Also: no atheist jokes, no gentleman jokes. WTF is this show?!
There are plenty of non fedora wearing protagonists too.
How did Cinephilia even exist before the internet?
I have the entire history of World Film at my fingertips and have tried to watch 1-2 films a day for years now, and I still feel like my knowledge of film is extremely limited.
How did folks like Martin Scorcese ever become as knowledgable as they did, especially when theatres were the only means of watching films? Did theatres used to cycle through Classics more often?
>Did theatres used to cycle through Classics more often?
Yeah. They also lived in a time where popular films weren't a wasteland of commercials for children and there existed greater variety in the market.
>Yeah. They also lived in a time where popular films weren't a wasteland of commercials for children and there existed greater variety in the market.
Is this true though? I always feel as this is romanticizing the past based on a selective knowledge of it. Was the general public ever really partial to what today is considered "art film"?