I'll bite. (needless to say, spoilers)

The characters certainly had motivation.

Jyn's motivation, much like Rae in FA, is simple, daddy issues. She isn't so much invested in the rebellion as she is in enacting vengeance for her father. She is stunted emotionally and is not idealistic, but I think she uses that as a vehicle to push other characters along with her. Her last moments with Cassian aren't driven by any great romance, just the solace of two people who don't know if what they did will make a difference, but they succeeded in what they set out to do. I suspect she understood before she left Yavin that she was not going to get out of it alive, which sort of fits with her fairly nihilistic view of the universe.

Cassian was entirely driven by the fight against the Empire. He was willing to do anything, and was completely ruthless at the start, but he does mellow towards the end as Jyn makes a point of saying that he was like a stormtrooper. He is a zealot, a true believer, and is willing to sacrifice everything, even his humanity, for the cause.

Orson, the imperial commander, is a mixture of patriotism and self interest. He's a fervant believer in the imperial ethos of bringing order to the galaxy, but he is also deeply interested in recognition and commensurate rise in rank. He is so motivated that he risks his life directly to try and stop the rebels (not something you typically see bad leader types do outside of superhero movies, that's what henchmen are for) at the end.

The droid is all programming, but his comedy relief is explained by the dialogue that slicing an imp droid can affect it's personality. He is the one of the few light hearted notes (and consequently gives us a pretty poignant note when he says goodbye and get's shut down) in what is a fairly depressing movie. His bluntly honest statements are perfectly ironic and as such really do deserve the laughs they get.

The monk and the warrior were guardians of a temple but are now displaced. While it's couched in the monks mysticism, I think honestly they were happy to stand up to the big bad guys who wrecked their temple and extract some form of revenge. I think it would please both of them to know that it was worth it in the end.

The imperial defector seems to have little motivation, but he has already taken the dangerous step of defecting and getting the ball rolling for the entire plot etc, he's obviously completely displeased about the empire and willing to risk his life to do something about it.

Saul has been driven mad by the fight. The rebel leadership all seem to fit well within their established roles in the canon, as do Tarkin and Vader. Random rebel and imp personal are placeholders and who really gives a fuck what their motivations are? X D

/shrug As far as character development goes, it's certainly not a work for the ages, but to say these characters are going to get a thing because they need to get a thing seems to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Oh yeah, and in regards to AT AT's, it's a strategic imperial world and heavily garrisoned. Likely a staging point for excursions around the galaxy as well. It has major shielding, AA and fighter complements, Star Destroyers standing guard etc. Sure, fan service is a thing (although the homages in R1 are far less clunky than FA, including things like the Hammerhead, references to the cartoons etc), but as an imp commander, I would certainly release AT AT and AT ST vehicles against an attacking force of unknown size, particularly when you see a whole bunch of landing pads explode simultaneously. Are their 10 commandos or 1,000? 10,000? Yeah, go lowball and wait for them to walk out in the open right? \= |

It's not like the AT AT's were stomping all over the archive looking for a guy hiding behind valuable Imp data infrastructure, they are roaming the outer regions and are fairly proof against ground troops. Makes sense to me.

Dunno, I think the RLM reviews are generally entertaining and thoughtful, but in this case whoever writes Plinkett has let his acerbic dislike of "new" Star Wars cloud his objectiveness imo. It was an enjoyable flick and certainly one I intend to own. I don't think it's anywhere near the best sci fi (although I kinda like it on par with Empire) movie out there, but it's far better than RLM gives it credit for, imo.

I enjoyed the movie. I read the book first, but only because I saw the trailers and wanted to see the movie, but I was advised to go to the source first. Perhaps because it was all fresh to me etc, that when I saw Zac's "moment montage" I was able to fill in the gaps.

I guess it depends on your definition of adaption. I feel that implicit in adaption is transformation or evolution. The story is in the telling no? Can you cut the story out, leaving behind all context, and still call it "Watchmen"?

The homage to Batman's suit is perhaps not literally true to the source material, but I think in some ways it is kind of true to the spirit of it. Here's Watchman, the graphic novel, was playing with our preconceptions of what makes a superhero comic book. Perhaps Snyder's intention was to use motifs of superhero movies in the same way Watchmen used preconceptions of its medium. maybe.

Boo! That had nothing to do with Ayn Rand or Objectivism. This was anti-pacifier, whereas John Galt & Co had their cigarettes stamped with the sign of the dollar.

But, Horray for the Great Escape homage. It just had no teeth for a smackdown against the GOP/Right Wingnuts. I expected more...

Led Zeppelin were "inspired" by a lot of artists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others

TBF, some of it was deliberate homage, some was kinda dodgy.

a spokesmen for the group said 'this was the one thing we didn't want to happen'
(in homage to brass eye https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRRw1ERj2Gc)

@Zawash -- all true. And yet, just because Calvin and Hobbes and Bill Watterson are/were awesome, it doesn't make IP and copyright rules any more sensible.

My opinion: those respectful and well-done parodies and homages (say, Pants are Overrated's Hobbes and Bacon) are fair use. The person/people that drew Calvin peeing on things? Fair use also. There is a big difference between "tasteless" and "should be illegal".

Selling car decals with those images is different, because then you're treading all over the "not for profit" element of fair use. However, tracking down tons of small-scale infringers on that, or even worse, average people who simply buy the decals/shirts/whatever and likely don't know or care to know about IP and copyright laws is ... a losing battle at best, and punitive towards *fans* of the IP at worst.

There are many many examples of going to idiotic (IMO) lengths to protect IP. Disney suing local bakeries for drawing some character in icing on top of a kids birthday cake. Metallica suing Napster, University internet hosts, and even individual downloaders of their music. Teachers being sued for playing a clip of a TV show, movie, or song as part of their lessons. Etc. etc.

At some level, copyright is a good thing. Or at least a necessary evil. But the litigious zeal with which IP and copyright are "protected" these days seems like we've lost sight of the "art before commerce" element that is a huge part of why Calvin and Hobbes was so awesome. And why IP is something worth protecting (within sensible limits).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Such a great song - and not even a parody. More of a homage.

Upvote at 1:20...then *quality for the Shining homage.

There are a LOT of similarities. It definitely blurs the line between "reboot" and "homage", but I'd argue that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I think it will take a few years for me to digest and figure out where I think it ranks in my personal assessment of the Star Wars movies.

That being said, I'm excited about the future of Star Wars again -- the prequels came very close to destroying any optimism that I had in that regard.

For the moment, consider Episode VII but ignore the plot and parallels / homage / blatant copying between it and A New Hope. In all three prequels combined, there wasn't a single character that was interesting; that we could identify with. Anakin was annoying -- in kid form and adult form. Ewan McGregor did OK with the material and directing he was given, but the script and writing in general did NOTHING to connect prequels Obi-Wan with the original trilogy. Padme, Jar-Jar (ha!), Palpatine, Dooku, etc. -- not a single memorable, interesting character that made me want to learn more about them. Sam Jackson's Mace Windu was probably the closest, but didn't get enough screen time or depth to really establish interest.

Already I feel confident in saying that in terms of characters, Episode VII is massively, overwhelmingly better than the prequels. Rey, Finn, and Poe are each individually far more interesting than every character from the prequels combined. AND, I want to see how those new faces interact with the old stars also. Luke, Leia, even Chewbacca (my personal favorite of the OT) all seem like they will continue to be very important to the story moving forward -- and continue to develop their own story arcs in addition to the new cast.

The Force Awakens wasn't *perfect* -- I tend to think it leaned a bit too much on revamping A New Hope also -- but it was very good and very entertaining. And I am definitely excited about the future of Star Wars again.

I've seen it twice now--once on opening night in IMAX with co-workers and the next day with my daughter and wife in 2D at the local theatre. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone to see it again if the local theatre hadn't of gifted me with discounted tickets (around $12 US for me and the wife and $9 for the daughter).

I was deeply disappointed with the film, though I would not go so far as to say it sucks like @kulpims did. If I had to sum it up in two phrases, I'd say "tries too hard to be clever" in homages to the original films and "deeply flawed" in terms of story. It's not a terrible film by any means, but I would say its unevenness makes it good yet far from great.

It's better and worse than the prequels at the same time. Acting and pacing are far better than the prequels (but not nearly as good as the originals as has been pointed out by @ChaosEngine already).

At the same time, say what you want about Lucas's prequels but he at least tried to expand the Star Wars universe and show us new sides and aspects of it--to make it really feel like a galaxy rather than a couple of mostly uninhabited worlds like Tatooine and Hoth that we got to see in the original trilogy. This movie is a step backwards from that and played things waaaaaay too safe (partly because, as I mentioned, they were too busy trying to make themselves look clever with references to the originals and lots of "nod, nod, wink, wink, see what I did there" moments).

But it is JJ Abrams and I shouldn't have really been as shocked as I was to find out how much of the movie was copy/pasted from the originals with twists that I'm sure he thought were clever but which I just found as cringe-worthy.

Still, really loved the new characters. The daughter was definitely enthralled by Rey, but surprisingly likes her better as dune-surfing scavenger than planet-hopping adventurer.

The director of the movie "You're Next" applauded this 'homage'.

So wonderful

The Simpsons’ couch gag has become a great place for innovative filmmakers and artists to show off their take on the iconic nuclear family and the many denizens of Springfield. From the creators of Rick And Morty, to Don Hertzfeldt, Guillermo Del Toro, John K., and many others, all have left their individual stamp on the opening of the classic show and its opening segment. Now another artist has thrown his hat in the ring, albeit unofficially, with a gruesome blending of The Simpsons with Adam Wingard’s film You’re Next.

Lee Hardcastle is an experienced stop-motion animator that has applied his craft to a segment in The ABCs Of Death, a mash-up of Frozen and The Thing, and even a music video for the group Gunship. Now Hardcastle has brought that same off-kilter horror sensibility to his proposed couch gag for Springfield’s first family with a possibly NSFW-ish (due to clay violence and gore) and fairly disturbing short. Hardcastle’s couch gag opens serenely enough before devolving into a home invasion pastiche just like You’re Next—much to the appreciation and applause of Adam Wingard himself. It’s unclear although unlikely that Fox will actually use this couch gag on screen, but maybe it will help boost Hardcastle’s chances for crafting a Treehouse Of Horror intro/segment.

Uh, isn't the song an homage to the first film when Kirk steals the car and drives it off a cliff (pretty sure this was the song playing in the background)?

Look, this is the 3rd movie in the rebooted franchise. Do people really not get the idea of a "reboot"? They're not re-making Star Trek, they're taking it in an entirely different direction. The first one clearly showed they wanted to go in the blockbuster action film direction and the second one re-affirmed that. So, it completely baffles me as to why anyone at this point would still think the rebooted franchise is going to be anything like the original Star Trek movies (let alone the TV series, which had far more time to build the characters and establish the universe than the movies do).

Now, as to the particulars of this trailer... they're going to blow up the Enterprise, again?!? We haven't "been there, done that" enough yet? And so much for their 5-year mission--looks like that is going to get cut a little short.

Still the idea of the main cast members getting stranded on a hostile planet is pretty good for allowing some cool between-character interaction and does in fact harken back to all of the TV series versions (where it seemed to happen on a fairly regular basis).

Will wait and see. Probably will be a good action popcorn flick (which is clearly what they want the series to be).

I got about 15 just for the challenge, but to me this is just another example of pop culture eating its own feces. Apparently all that's left is unoriginal gimmicky derivative tributes samples homages parodies remakes sequels, etc. I blame Tarantino.

At least "iconic" wasn't used anywhere in the description.

Good stuff. The guy has several more animations on his channel. There's even one paying homage to the old kung fu action flicks, starring various Gundam models.

Both of which are retellings of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, as are the many that came before them. I still prefer the Vincent Price version of the story, The Last Man on Earth. Though Charleton Heston was pretty good in the mutant apocalypse version called Omega Man.

It's the lone human survivor realizing he has become the villain of an emerging post-human society. The Fallout video game series and Mad Max movie series have also paid homage to this.

Aaaaand... you may hate it, but Waterworld is a special entry in this lineage, in that the anti-hero is a post-human in a human dominated world apocalypse. In that way, District 9 and State Zero are sort of in Waterworld's direct lineage -- or, rather, the joining of forces between the human anti-hero and the post-human hero.