****Star Wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker - Official Thread****

I'd say getting an alien's tail shoved up your nethers is a bad way to go, regardless of whichever gender you identify with, or the genitals you happen to possess.

The most horrifying part of that scene is actually the lack of what you see and the sounds coming over the loudspeakers. Even after watching the movie many times, I still find that part very unsettling.
 
And Ripley's femininity was explored more and more through subsequent movies - is she less of an all-time-great movie character because of it, or did it define and raise up her character? Aliens is a ******* masterpiece!
Subsequent movies were utter tripe tho. Aliens was the last good Alien film, and I wouldn't say it particularly explored her femininity. I'd say instead it showed a fairly believable character, who displayed a range of emotions that made sense given her situation.

Don't even bother with Alien 4 which is utter horse muck. Alien 3 had good bits but was overall poor/misguided, and I don't recall Ripley's femininity being a driving motivation for the story as a whole.

In any case, movies back then could explore character aspects in a natural, non-intrusive way that didn't flash neon signs saying, "Look at this! We're doing a movie which features diversity! And trans people! Look at us! Look!"

That's the difference. Today you see how blatant the various social agendas are. Not only are they not subtle, they tend to take centre stage. As others have said, they grate especially when the story is so poor you're looking for crap to criticise anyhow.

If they spent more time putting together a good story/script, and less time shoe-horning every SJW theme in they can think of, maybe we wouldn't be so **** off about it.

Tokenism and social agendas stand out like a sore thumb when the movies are lacking the essential elements of a good story/film.
 
Subsequent movies were utter tripe tho. Aliens was the last good Alien film, and I wouldn't say it particularly explored her femininity. I'd say instead it showed a fairly believable character, who displayed a range of emotions that made sense given her situation.

Don't even bother with Alien 4 which is utter horse muck. Alien 3 had good bits but was overall poor/misguided, and I don't recall Ripley's femininity being a driving motivation for the story as a whole.

In any case, movies back then could explore character aspects in a natural, non-intrusive way that didn't flash neon signs saying, "Look at this! We're doing a movie which features diversity! And trans people! Look at us! Look!"

That's the difference. Today you see how blatant the various social agendas are. Not only are they not subtle, they tend to take centre stage. As others have said, they grate especially when the story is so poor you're looking for crap to criticise anyhow.

If they spent more time putting together a good story/script, and less time shoe-horning every SJW theme in they can think of, maybe we wouldn't be so **** off about it.

Tokenism and social agendas stand out like a sore thumb when the movies are lacking the essential elements of a good story/film.
Alien 3 was pretty crap (a long, long time since I've watched it, though), but I actually think Resurrection had some good stuff.

Motherhood was a big theme of Aliens and Resurrection - you surely didn't miss that? I can't remember 3 enough to comment much, though.
 
I think the argument has gone off tangent a bit. The point originally being made was people liked well made characters of any background before the recent "strong independent woman" thing gave us unlikeable badly written ones. Thinking back over the last 40+ years most of the "diversity" battles have been won and victory is more or less assured. Thus it is ironic at this point that so many figurehead "diversity" characters are so awfully written and seem to be doing genuine damage to the concept.
 
Alien 3 was pretty crap (a long, long time since I've watched it, though), but I actually think Resurrection had some good stuff.

Motherhood was a big theme of Aliens and Resurrection - you surely didn't miss that? I can't remember 3 enough to comment much, though.

3 was murdered by the studio sadly. You can dig up the original script for 3 on the net these days and it sounds so blinking awesome, just got sabotaged :(
 
The William Gibson script, no relation to the one filmed, has just been released in comic form by Dark Horse, looking forward to reading it.

It's good but mainly just because it's so different to what we saw. I'm not convinced if it had made it to screen it would have been received any more favorably than what we had already.
 
F44247-E2-E84-D-4-AB4-A651-169-FB76-CAEBD.jpg


The Emperor is very prominent.
 
JJ is very good at rehashes, and with Rian Johnson killing off Snoke, JJ just went back to his usual MO. Let's face it, Disney has lost the plot with Star Wars.
 
Is this real? Honestly im a massive SW fan but bringing the Emperor back in some way is just desperation. Its a massive red flag that Disney know the fans are fed up after TLJ.


Would sorta make sense if Palpatine is actually Darth Plagueis, that's always the theory that's been kicked around since episode 3 at least.
 
JJ doesn't exactly have many options though since his story was destroyed by Johnson.

At this point he may as well go over the top or even rehash slightly in a bonkers way.

It won't get any worse.
 
Was reading the wiki entry for palpatine and came across this review quote about McDiarmid in episode 3. :eek::D

McDiarmid isn't the subtlest of satanic tempters. With his lisp and his clammy little leer, he looks like an old queen keen on trading an aging butt-boy (Count Dooku) for fresh meat — which leaves Anakin looking more and more like a 15-watt bulb.
 
Back
Top Bottom