Jump to content

OncomingStorm93

Free Account+
  • Content Count

    982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

994 Likes

About OncomingStorm93

  • Rank
    Sleeper Hit

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

968 profile views
  1. 1: I’m so sorry to have violated your safe space. 2: This isn’t a fan forum, this is a box office forum with an emphasis on on analysis, not fan praise. Everything I have said has a relevance to the films overall quality, which translates to BO performance. 3: I am being constructive. I’ve pointed out specifics. I’ve discussed alternatives. It’s better than you shutting down all criticism with an argument that boils down to “well if these films are bad then all the Star Wars films are bad!”. I’m here because I dearly wish this trilogy was more cohesive. 4: I’ve tried to have an actual discussion with you, but you have shown no interest in refuting my arguments (such as the differences between Han Solo and Finn, Finns importance as a character or lack thereof, and other topics). Instead you want to make baseless claims like “everyone was super young when they saw the OT”. If you want to have an actual discussion about, let’s say the differences between Finn and Han, I’ve laid out my points, I’m waiting for a follow up beyond ‘you don’t like Finn so of course you don’t like his arc’.
  2. You're right. Not liking the Sequel Trilogy is simply an unfathomable view that no one should be allowed to carry, much less demonstrate with direct comparisons to previous films, the lack of consistency in character motivations, and the absence of a larger picture across the trilogy. Thanks to you, I now realize that's all overrated. I should think less moving forward. Thanks!
  3. Oy vey. I don't like Finn because of his lack of an arc. Not the other way around. I find it worth pointing out you either chose not to, or could not refute a single point I made about how different Finn and Han Solo are. "None of the Star Wars films have deep characters". I see your argument has devolved to 'the previous films are no better than the Sequels, so all criticism is invalid'. Are you admitting that the sequel characters are shallow, after trying to claim Finn had this incredible arc? That's not a winning argument. "Most people saw the OT movies when they were extremely young"? I didn't realize everyone on the face of the Earth was 7 years old in 1977, and still just 7 years old six years later when the OT ended. No one who wasn't "extremely young" at the time of the OT saw the films, it's now official. And I guess no one was able to discover the films in the following decades... My goodness... 'Everyone is wearing nostalgia goggles' is not a winning argument. ROTJ was ripped when it first was released. And is still ripped by many today. Is this breaking news to you? You should stop before you fall further behind.
  4. You are reading into things that aren't there. 1: Finn isn't selfish at any point, not anything close to Han Solo. Finn doesn't want to shoot the villagers. Finn works with Poe to escape, and immediately tries to find Poe upon crashing on Desert Planet #5. He then gets caught up in an adventure with Rey, an adventure he is happy to be a part of and never considers leaving. An argument could be made he is selfish when he tries to flee in TLJ. If you want to make that argument, I counter that is evidence that there was never a long term story arc planned for the character. 2: He begins to care about a specific girl just after he meets her. Han and Leia's romantic arc had a beginning (He's stubborn and disconnected from others), middle (feelings grow throughout Empire, he sacrifices himself), and end (Happily ever after until the sequels) that played out over three films. Han grows as a person. Meanwhile, Finn asks Rey about cute boyfriends in TFA's first act, and it NEVER COMES UP AGAIN! That's not building character. Tell me, how is Finn any different as a character from the first time we meet him to the last? 3: Finn tries to makes a personal sacrifice for the person he cares about? First of all, at no point in TLJ is it implied Finn is making the sacrifice for any reason, other than the fact he's physically close enough to the cannon and has a clear enough path to attempt it. Oh, and Rey isn't even on the Salt Planet! She's in the Falcon, flying above the planet! How is Finn taking out the cannon supposed to save Rey? Of course, Finn doesn't make a sacrifice, because of freaking Rose. It's all junk. 4: He isn't fully on board until the third movie? So many things about that sentence just don't matter. It doesn't matter if Finn is on board or not, because he serves no purpose as a character. No function to the driving plot. No emotional attachments to others that pay off. Nothing contributed to the Resistance that couldn't have been scripted to someone else. And all of these hypotheticals are rooted in plot developments, not character developments. I can argue that Finn is on board with the Resistance as soon as he helps them deactivate the Starkiller Base shields and capture Phasma. How is that any less helpful to the Resistance than the NOTHING that he does in TROS? You are reading into things that aren't there.
  5. Han Solo is a lesson in morality and humanity. Going from rogue smuggler only interested in financial reward and self-preservation, to someone who cares about his friends, and is willing to make personal sacrifices for those he cares about. Han Solo's arc is about finding selflessness. What is Finn's arc about?
  6. You're confusing hypothetical screenwriting for the actual screenwriting. If only we could judge every film (or trilogy) based on what it was intended, instead of what it actually was. Then maybe I wouldn't get so many headaches...
  7. I'm saying that they weren't close on a character level. Close because the plot necessitated a bunch of men to keep Rey company on her Macguffin search, sure. Close on a character level? No, absolutely not. Unless you want to count superficial banter as "character building", which I don't.
  8. Ok, but for that the case, TLJ and TROS would have had to carry on those character dynamics! They didn't! This whole argument is a moot freaking point! Who cares that Finn's motivation in TFA was to protect Rey, it doesn't matter later! Who cares if Finn was technically Resistance in TFA, TLJ, or TROS? It doesn't matter! None of it freaking matters! You are reading into something that wasn't actually thought out. That's why so many people can have different takeaways. Nobody belongs anywhere, nobody exists on purpose, everybody's going to die. Come watch TV.
  9. Finn's entire point in TFA was to be a big red herring as to the new "Jedi protagonist". Otherwise he serves no function (on a character level). Plot wise, sure they give Finn things to do, they are paying the actor to physically be there after all, but Finn has no character purpose for existing in TFA. He's just there to keep Luke's lightsaber warm until it's Rey's time to shine. That's not a character.
  10. If you want to argue that Finn only cares about Rey in TFA, fine, but that's rendered an entirely moot point anyway, seeing how neither TLJ or TROS develop that character dynamic any further. On a superficial level (because that's all that exists in this trilogy outside of Kylo Ren's struggle), it never matters who/what Finn is fighting for after he leaves the FO, as he is entirely pointless.
  11. How can anyone think that Finn isn't committed to the Resistance by the end of TFA, when Finn leads the mission to disable the Starkiller Base shields (with Han)? Or when he decides to fight Kylo Ren 1 on 1, despite his obvious lack of preparedness? You could argue that he's doing it for Rey, but since the FO is after Rey, it's essentially the same as Finn choosing the Resistance over the FO. It can be argued that Finn made his decision in TFA, and that the only reason some people are debating if Finn made that decision in TLJ or TROS is because of a storytelling decision that Rian Johnson didn't have to make. It's all nonsense.
  12. Finn doesn't have a story arc (Resistance or otherwise) in the trilogy. He doesn't have an individual story arc in any individual film either, unless you consider his decision to desert the FO in the 1st act of TFA a story arc. Otherwise, his "arcs" consist of being womansplained to by Rose, and trying to tell Rey something in RoS. Those aren't arcs, much less whatever "trilogy arc" you want to invent. An argument over when Finn officially became part of the Resistance is one of the most insignificant things you could argue over in this trilogy. It doesn't matter to any individual film. It doesn't matter to the trilogy as a whole since the trilogy wasn't planned as a beginning-middle-end. It doesn't matter to Finn's character arc because he lacks both character and an arc after the first 20 minutes of TFA (leaving the FO is the only crucial decision he makes in any film).
  13. Oh yeah, people who don't like films where subplots go nowhere, plot points from the previous film are ignored, and the story ends without setting up the final film are objectively wrong. Right? I'm going to flip your statement. The plot of TLJ actually works much less than the people who like the film care to admit. In the end, both of our statements are subjective jargon.
  14. Some people are too focused on fixing or debating the plot points of TLJ to realize that the film literally could have been about anything. It didn't have to follow the the specific plot points Rian chose to go down in the first place. So don't think about TLJ in terms of how the plot points can have been improved. Imagine the possibilities that could have been accomplished from scratch instead.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.